aa : 
alias Sagat 
eee) Lreaet lel 
eta fs Rebel wi 
: ase ehat maser nits 
hs eM SEP AS ya eager 
hs Pipi 
math mS pal 


# 
Hieig eho <7) 
i uy Worth 


a= 


as 


2 


2 
c9 
<S 


f merit 
ff Mik tie Wet stiaue hij Pe thie s ty 
ih Prey hate Hat i wren a hs 

slag ene arts anita: aad ity: teuenys run tit eatin 
} ‘ rai eae aera han ty dloa Hatin ar ts ’ : #4 

Y ’ Pyh-aibeaba. crtpen) 
i9 front siishs exes pe 
ead eh et tiPy) 


=s2 


EHD fe sieves, oA 
i aeeiied ts 


Ord tod hd 
sate eine aii faqs 
S4 Ash ahs 9) 


mee etetiectt i parity 
fodks these sue Pitt 

tia PRE HA M bet it i 5 
Wether’ 3 Sepsis , a 


- : ‘ Lave 

nti af Ee tae nw hi Aepainy 

ut ste he ane Aidh 
; 3 fet A as i 4 fgets ie 

Ms bast D i VO , bps 

1 RAE pL at Ah bie r tt il 

agin BUS Hrs pied as ns re oo iy 
chat na ety bio Hak i : Teds et sed alata, fis sth 
#54 ba At 


path sia fhe 
tf aa 


Bi Oils toaaipe 
Pier treatm pce 
Asia habit agai Tei, 


ba fe aie 
Ca uible ie 


ii Yn 


i 
cee eH ‘ en 
repeee La eal Bid i Bhlie) 
Seon dey te 
barat Deit i 
palit 
ce rash 


Paelsy 


pabtae 44 by 
yi, 


hbk ie 
vente 
ae 
FAD polel abs 4 
; t So Sa coed oe ited 
HM ane eet tt a ne 
Si tindat Beech 


a ia vata 
a H tl tants 

vata atiegt ait ie at eat ae abate 
; itn einai aga me pias 
itn iia o hee us i a tails, Ki 
J 


Ne vag snd Ui a4 Hedatiniah 
pai it : ( Wao iMiavhiebes i Ska He 
UL Dil f joe py 
a imag lates py eae saa nv 


te vise) 
Mh ite Ay 


| deat 


1 
= 


a= 
=e. 


Ey 


13) 

4 hoe 

ace iatisiahentl oi deees 
sine a be 4 
Did 4 pet 


SE252285 


4 ate iene sn 


Seibert aaa 


us 
pitts an 


it 


hy mids 
i af cai 
ih Wane 


en ad i Pies eh is 
Lp | 4 
vi uit aia Ae 


dH oe 


eheriay ‘ictes eae ie 
treks hate ke Wi hhc 
aut att 
tia rte citi? sight tint 
tanenns FR Re) shudrntiiey if 
w ; i i fl vaeeat inlet ei bel He : 
Hy ed ees Wy i He ily ATA Mba ty a yadthay aiA‘ne ia 
Seas ease Tes AC iL aNta SERED ANE HUGH Unate HU fete rT Tana igns BAG 
eey FY, ai Cola Yalta iepeges Pare F 
SRS TULas leas eae hat 
i ube 
Hala anean ihe 


i] Hh ! psy) 
; ao ale 
Sage ae Hide ih th 
Hai eth olbs nde 


= 


= 

sss = 
Sse 
SS 


= 


gee 


1 Ha 
iy Be i 
a pan 
Hii a a 


re Ret ie 


ah 


1 YF 


sha 
Haye ri 

path 

ah 


= 


Mt 

oe - He 
loathe aia 
nth ee cae 


Sr3z2 


i tn 
, na 
(hada in Hh nt ip i as 

iantintig h-prhe tn jpg 
Hates seat EE? 
aati? past 
anata 4 eit be 
aay hy i 


Pe He ba ae 
tne ret) } 
Helatt iat debe ates ee i 

ewe ih ? i 
i ene ah 1 Hata therye Ae 


altars site held 
Nvalla a dis oa Adele Ree ye s * 
Ate ee - i a iia hy oe = le 
PIMA ed roe 


de 
Vhalbel 
— ; 


we ene Hi 
sities jis 


th, 
ean i ie 
4 


HA haehytar aaa AN he Mah ta 
: Tieiedet ‘4 Maange) ee th He 


bby ail 


| ; a uv 
asia) ht ut , ne ‘i id a) dog ik 4 Sit 


ay as eit ae alt a hanasshany iat hn 
i Ms ‘ VL ahs “ 
toh Medea ha 54 ye ie! I eiebaAci aig iy HL Gee ie ot 
4 t! Pubes in 
beta inctenaal aia pat Nite Ban Beretta bt 
a Mee siNe an oma eT Nt nat initit sh Ve aes 
rt ait +i) Ria y . 
epee sittin saben eh athe Mines sith ci eatate ae cs 
Nes pai HaAta a elaggheian ane 
jortay daha 1sta abst 
} bait 


iiss necai i } 
Hale te Wiane Wake Pile Dy Hs 
44 bal jullt da anna 4 iy rallaheae tavanas 
mueaaayst f Ny i witrscbyyllt rh tA 2 raf 
hal fet Veebeti data ft Ske ihe Maye ' ht) 
seh ato 4 seu sian sla yet 1) ; tat Vi tat ; \y } airtel ep ae 
ri 4) masta aes Laisa ba 9 
we 4 Hythe 


' ae ite ae 
Mi i As i) ian pitts 


Hiri bel 
tiehtyene 
da vii 


rytats 
4 Nello na'he at 
aaa hell 
Pept ap hte sitity rit siehian ade avila akney aaa 
usa os ee es oh 
4 a he . . 
ita hehehe belts A h4 pa eaelhs ot fussy Hak Veintensna has ae : disensngaaatn ttt Aides mee 
Saljatha Ya yee) ” haga sa ose SAV habe ep tet et te re wig ia 
Vatctha doehe pacts FRARRD to bebe hie Sba hacky teiea hs Pie ae 
; S410 hy i gat, Bae Shey eee \) ian 
be ish ¥ 
tf} 


Peer one irn 
Aha: ye Wea’ ie la) 


Heh ans lt aibony ie 
satel a yy 


‘hath a Batty hg 

siaafnersynamaaee tt 

Wad sp atestheOat ones 

nae 86a 5 

its Hoe tira Sha Wert a a i iota Pane Met 

by testa eit Ha Oyen el? 
bn hs fie eRe Wr abil Sth eb etee 
TinbeNsh eek ect endbl seh ebediet 

















Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/develoomentofsynOOfort 





THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNODICAL 
POLITY OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH 
IN AMERICA, TO 1829. 


A THESIS 
IN HISTORY 


PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE 
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT 
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


ROBERT FORTENBAUGH 


PHILADELPHIA 


1926 






= 









+> 7. 





s 
= se 





Dies 






= * 
ma Tt 
“ . 


—. 





_ 4 i) a ¢ i i ‘ ~ 4b a .s 
; mee * . f 4 
oer. _ meat 7: : oretat ie ot a % * 
4 FI a, ri 53 fd i ok re e 
ee 6 ee 
oe : f 
v y 


ae: 
Se 
P 


PREFACE. 


The accompanying dissertation is designed to show the 
development of the synodical polity of the Lutheran Church 
in America, to 1829. In the Introduction the importance 
of the study of the religious life of the United States, and 
its claim to the right to be chosen as a subject for investi- 
gation, are set forth. In Chapter I the European Back- 
ground of the Lutheran Church is described, with special 
attention to the contributions of European Christianity in 
the field of Church Polity. Chapter II is concerned with 
the Beginnings of the Lutheran Church in America, to 1781, 
in which year the Constitution of the First Synodical Body 
was first committed to writing. To this point no claim is 
made of original investigation. The sources have been 
largely secondary, of well-recognized authority. Primary 
sources have also been studied, but this study was for veri- 
fication rather for the acquisition of new knowledge on the 
subject. 

With Chapter III the work of original investigation be- 
gins and all conclusions are based upon the fruits of study 
of primary source materials. Chapter III describes A 
Period of District Synodical Organization, Re-Organiza- 
tion, and Development, which extends from 1781 to 1829, 
with some observations of Development to 1839. Chapter 
IV describes The First General Synodical Organization 
which was begun in 1820, the study of which is continued to 
1829. In that year this General Organization adopted a 
complete system of Church Government and Discipline, pro- 
viding for Congregational, District Synodical, and General 
Synodical Organization. 

Chapter V sets forth Conclusions as to Principles under- 
lying the Development of the Synodical Polity of the Luth- 
eran Church in America, to 1829. In this Chapter not only 
are conclusions made as to the development of the synodical 
bodies in isolation, but relations to general social move- 


ments in the United States during the period studied are 
traced out. The importance of the General Synod is es- 
tablished and the work of S. S. Schmucker in his connection 
with it is described. As a Final Conclusion, there is men- 
tioned, first, the fact that the period under consideration, 
1781-1829, was a period of slow growth and painful devel- 
opment in the realm of synodical polity in the Lutheran 
Church in America. However, the Church became firmly 
established and strongly organized at length. The spirit of 
Eclecticism was the moving spirit and the directing method 
for the accomplishment of the purpose. Those who labored 
in building and developing the Church and her institutions 
were pioneering and therein is found an explanation of 
much weakness and laxity, and many mistaken practices 
charged against them. As a Second Final Conclusion, and 
this a negative one, is mentioned the fact that it does not 
appear from the sources studied that the influence of the 
Frontier, so potent in affecting American institutions, had 
a direct effect upon the development of the synodical polity 
of the Lutheran Church in America before 1829. 

With gratitude the writer takes this occasion to acknow!l- 
edge helpful suggestions and criticisms which have been 
valuable in the preparation of this dissertation. The Rev. 
Professor A. R. Wentz of the Theological Seminary at Get- 
tysburg, Pa., first suggested the subject and has been un- 
sparing in his enthusiastic interest and most helpful in his 
criticisms. The Rev. Professor Henry Eyster Jacobs of the 
Lutheran Seminary at Philadelphia, Pa., has most kindly 
shared his wide and accurate knowledge of the history of 
the Lutheran Church in America, and has inspired the 
writer to a firmer confidence in the subject. Professor Al- 
bert E. McKinley of the University of Pennsylvania has 
shown a sympathetic yet critical interest throughout the 
time of preparation. Mrs. Elsie Singmaster Lewars has 
generously taken time to read the manuscript and make in- 
valuable suggestions as to style. While this acknowledg- 
ment is made it should also be said that those who have 


thus been of service are not responsible for errors or other 
inadequacies; such responsibility the writer cheerfully as- 
sumes for himself. 

It is a pleasure to acknowledge also, at this time, a debt 
of gratitude to three outstanding teachers of History from 
whom the writer has been privileged to receive not only in- 
struction but also inspiration to pursue historical studies. 
These are Dr. Alexander C. Flick, formerly of Syracuse 
University, now New York State Historian, and Professors 
Albert E. McKinley and St. George L. Sioussat of the Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania. To his wife who assisted in trans- 
lating and in many other ways thanks and gratitude are 
also due. 


INTRODUCTION 
CHAPTER I. 


CHAPTER II. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

ek AP AL ee 5 

THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND........ 6-29 
Luther Assails the Ecclesiastical Sys- 

tem’ of the Roman-Chureh ee 6 


The First Organizations in Opposition 
to the Authority of the Roman 
Churcehic.30. 2 See fi 
The Proposal at the Synod of Homberg 
and Luther’s Attitude Toward it.. 9 
Secular Rulers Are Given Control of the 


Church: in Germany. 2... = eee 11 
Views of Church Polity as Expressed in 

the’ Gontéssions (0 12 
Views of Zwingli and Calvin ......... 14 


Forms of Church Organizations in Eu- 
rope Which Influenced the Form of 
the American Lutheran Church. 14-28 


In SGutheransGermanyieee.. ee 15 
In the Calvinistic Churches ........ 16 
Inwilolland ts: 46s talons 18 
The Constitution of the Lutheran 
Church in Amsterdam ........ 21 
In England tae yee Zo 
In. Sweden. Seve ec 2 24 
Diversity in. Germany. 2.0.02. ee 26 
Conclusions Sh. 2.24. ae eee 28-9 


The Lutheran Principles for the Gov- 
ernment of the Church—Conform- 
ity to the Word of God, and Adap- 
tation to Existing Social Conditions 28 

The Effect Upon the Establishment of 
the Church in America .......... 29 

BEGINNINGS IN AMERICA, TO 1781... .31-62 

Beginnings of Congregational Organi- 
Zation | casein Sel Sete ee 31 


CHAPTER III. 


PAGE 
The United Congregations, and the Part 


Gbe Vienlenberge tote tec ek le tre 30 
Conclusions as to Congregational Orga- 
PeRVASI BY ONL bs 850059 yet ie ae a oats evant DG 35 
Earliest Attempts at Synodical Organi- 
ZACIOU MTR a ee ale: 39 
The Organization of the Ministerium of 
ENS VIVAAH i486 on eee ees ches 41 
The Development of the Ministerium of 
MENNSVIVAT le CL (=O lo fen ee eee 47 
The Constitution of the Ministerium of 
Pennsylvania, in force in 1781.... 57 
GONGCIUSIONS gr mrenttiee ee clctie pike ates 61 


A PERIOD OF DISTRICT SYNODICAL ORGA-.. 
NIZATION, RE-ORGANIZATION AND 


DEVELOBMENTI Pe yeh cc asl cco 63-145 
Beginnings of the Ministerium °...... 64 
Contents of the Minutes of the First 

Recorded Meetings ............. 66 
ChexGonstituvlonvot | (964e0.. nce. 67 
The Development of the Ministerium of 

Pennsyivalla sli ol-G2c0 ot oe ee eee 68 


The Religious Atmosphere in 1787.... 71 

A Study of the Constitution of the Min- 
isterilum of Pennsylvania of 1792. 72 

Conclusions as to the Constitution of 


1 Be ate os tar oth liv ek Pea aia ore Crip ad 76 
The Constitution of the Ministerium of 
PTO Wa OLR TO Ml Oi ean etre, cork 17 
Contents of the Constitution ......... ie 
Further Development of the Minister- 
bP PeIUINPOLE NEW. “LOCK 6.60 orien 79 


A Study of the Constitution of the Min- 
isterium of New York of 1816 ... 80 

Further Development of the Minister- 
TUMAO LN CW OLK ALO) bOZone os ae 83 


PAGE 
Development of the Ministerium of 


Pennsylvania, 1793-1829 ...... 86-91 
The: ‘Conferences: t..iee eeee 89 
The End of the) Periods.) see 89 

The Development of the Synod of North 

Caroling | 1803-29820 eens 91-104 
Preliminariessy. ste ee ee eee 91 
The First Lutheran Ecclesiastical As- 

sembly; in the: pout... sa... ee 93 
The Organization of the Synod of 
INorthe: Garolinay vi ae eee 94 


Development of the Synod, 1804-1817 96 
The Revised and Enlarged Constitu- 


ACG) Aad Wa9 ea NPE ER Pe Aa) oF ci. oh 
The MeetingsorylsSloe i ae. eee 101 

The Synod of North Carolina and the 
PIQN-L TOUS Then eee 102 

Proposed Union with the Protestant 
HpiscopalsGChurche) 4. ee 103 

The Development of the Synod of Ohio, 
LSPS-1829 Sein cee 104-108 
The “Ohio Special Conference’ ....104 
A Synodical Form Assumed ....... 106 

The Development of the Synod, to 
L829 eC eet ee 106 

The Development of the Tennessee 
Synod LS20s1 829 ee eee 108-128 

The “First Rupture in the Lutheran 
ChurcheineAmerica ye. ee 108 

The Organization of the Tennessee 
SVNOd)s Lea sich Cees tee ee Lis 

The Development of the Synod to 
R27 iy, er ed eae 115 


Study of the Constitution, as of 1827 120 

Examination of the Altered Consti- 
CUtION, asrOofelocous eee een 122, 

The Polity of the Tennessee Synod. .124 


CHAPTER IV. 


PAGE 
The Development of the Synod of Mary- 
land and Virginia, 1820-1829. .128-134 
The Withdrawal from the Minister- 


LUIDOreeennsyivalliad wea e. 128 
The Organization of the Synod ..... 130 
The Development, 1821-1829 ....... 131 
The Development of the Synod of South 
Warolinadeel oct slS29ewee, ae 134-138 
The Organization of the Synod ..... 134 
The Development, 1825-1834 ....... 136 
The Development of the Synod of West 
Pennsylvania, 1825-1831 .....1388-143 
Breliminariesstoccalocome tate 138 
The Organization and Development of 
THe SVNOGM LOADS Sok) eee 141 
The Development of the Synod of Vir- 
OUT A a OO ee eat. ern 143-145 
THE FIRST GENERAL SYNODICAL OR- 
GAN TZATIONG rite re cieis cies 146-202 
Earliest Proposals for a General Synod 147 
PHCRS Plone NOUTT <-OLe lB L9 ee vec 149 
Study of the Constitution of the Gen- 
CLAIR OMNOC Amat reeee Sicrer erst ees 153 


The Attitude of the District Synodical 
Bodies of the Lutheran Church in 
America toward the Constitution 
of the General Synod, and to the 
General Synod Itself, Under Any 


CONStitulion were we eon eee cs 158 
The Attitude of the Ministerium of 
Pannsy Van lamee bale ie cis ckecc toes. 159 
The Attitude of the Ministerium of 
ING witrOnkseitet ects te kccws se. peers 160 
The Attitude of the Synod of North 
Garolinaweereiee, Mees cee eee 163 


The Attitude of the Synod of Ohio. .165 
The Attitude of the Synod of Tennes- 
ROG Te tee ean uenn gate eater aoe ts 168 


CHAPTER V. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Study of the Objections of the Com- 
mittee Against the Constitution 


of: the General7oynod 1.) J. eo. ie 
The Attitude of the Synod of Mary- 
land and Virginia. ©. eee 179 
The Development of the General Synod, 
LSPs SBbs ee Are ey ie 181 
The Withdrawal of the Pennsylvania 
Ministeriliine. 32 e023 ee 182 
Successful Efforts to Save the General 
Synod 26 92 28 poe fea ae ee 186 


“The Formula for the Government and 
Discipline of the Lutheran Church 
in Maryland and Virginia” <2. i453 188 
The Development of the General Synod 
as a Result of the Organization of 
the West Pennsylvania Synod.....192 
Study of the Constitution for Synods 
Adopted by the General Synod, in 
1829, and Recommended to the Dis- 
trictySyROdS 72... ee. Cee 196 
CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE PRINCIPLES 
UNDERLYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
THE SYNODICAL POLITY OF THE 
LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA TO 
18297 eer 2 no ee 203-230 
Conclusions Concerning the Principles 
Underlying the Development of the 
District Synodical Polity in the 
Lutheran Church in America, to 
18295) ASRS ae ee ee 203 
Conclusions Concerning the Principles 
Underlying the Development of the 
General Synodical Polity in the 
Lutheran Church in America, to 
1829 2) ve din MAGA eee 214 


INTRODUCTION. 


There has not been accorded to the history of religion in 
America such exhaustive study, in so careful and scientific 
a manner, as has been accorded to other phases of the na- 
tional life. It is true that a wealth of historical writing 
dealing with the religious life of the country has been pro- 
duced, but when the quality of this production is compared 
with that dealing with the political development, for ex- 
ample, it is clear that the interests and efforts of the best- 
qualified historians have not been directed to the field of 
history of religion, especially that in the United States.’ 

This thought was doubtless in the mind of J. Franklin 
Jameson when in his presidential address before the Amer- 
ican Historical Association he said, ‘‘In every other period 
of recorded time, we know that the study of religion casts 
valuable light on many other aspects of history. Why 
should it be otherwise with the religious history of Amer- 
ica? Unless we are content to confine ourselves to the well- 
worn grooves of constitutional and political history, and to 
resign to sciences less cautious than history the broad story 
of American culture, why should we not seek light from 
every quarter? Most of all let us seek it from the history 
of American religion, in the sum total an ample record, even 
though in parts we have to compose it like a mosaic from 
fragments of unpromising material.’”? 

It is to contribute in part to the appeal just set forth, and 
in part to illumine the internal development of an important 
section of a great religious communion that the present 
work is presented. 


1 Humphrey, Nationalism and Religion in America. Chapt. 1 
gives some suggestive observations concerning the treatment of the 
part played by religion in American history. 

2 “The American Acta Sanctorum,” in The American Historical 
Review, 13: 286-302. 


6 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


CHAPTER I. 
THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND. 


LUTHER ASSAILS THE ECCLESIASTICAL SYSTEM OF THE ROMAN 
CHURCH. 


The history of the Christian Churches in America can 
not be understood apart from their European beginnings. 
This is notably true of the Lutheran Church; it finds the 
beginnings of its history specifically in the Protestant 
Reformation.! Several years after his work of opposition 
to the purely spiritual errors of the Roman Church began, 
Martin Luther came to see very clearly, though sorrowfully, 
that he must also oppose the ecclesiastical system of the old 
church. In the Middle Ages there had been asserted, and 
for the most part successfully maintained in the West, the 
supremacy of the Roman See and the jus divinum of papal 
authority. On this basis a system for the government of 
the church had been evolved which was imperial and which 
claimed, further, to describe the organization which was the 
sole agent of eternal salvation. Objections, it is true, had 
previously been made to the presumptions of the Papacy 
but none resulted in successful opposition until Luther stood 
forth.’ 

In his first public disputation at Leipsic in 1519 Luther 
clung to the clause in the Apostles’ Creed, “The Communion 
of Saints,” as the authoritative definition of the Church.* 


a Jacobs, A History of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the 
2 


2 Luther, Von den Conciliis and Kirchen; Jacobs, “Notes on 
Kirchen-Regiment by Th. Harnack,” 27-34; Richard, “Lectures on 
Church Polity,” 26-32. 

3 Lowrie, The Church and Its Organization, 34; Koestlin, The 
Theology of Luther, 2:538. But Luther also defended the “catho- 
licity” of Huss’ definition, viz: “the Church is the totality of the pre- 
destinate,” see Jacobs, C. M., “The Development of Luther’s Doctrine 
of the Church,” in The Lutheran Church Review, 34:208-18. For a 
full statement of Luther’s view of the church see Koestlin, op. cit., 


of the Lutheran Church in America i 


It exists and can exist only where the gospel is rightly 
preached and the sacraments properly administered. These 
are the outward signs by which the Church is to be recog- 
nized. To Luther the Word of God was everything in ec- 
clesiastical organization. ‘‘Wherever the gospel is, there 
—da—must also be a Holy Christian Church.’* As the 
reformatory movement enlarged others came to accept his 
views and the idea that the Roman Church was not the ex- 
clusive agent of salvation all those who opposed it were in 
agreement in asserting.® For since those in opposition 
had been cast out of the Church, if the Church’s contention 
was admitted they would then be without hope of salvation. 


THE FIRST ORGANIZATIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THE AUTHORITY 
OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 


To meet the religious needs of those who followed the Re- 
formers steps were taken to organize groups for worship 
and for confirmation in the faith. Luther gave advice when 
called upon, but it must be understood that he was not pri- 
marily interested in the formalities of organization, nor did 
his genius express itself in that direction.°® 


2:538-72; Jacobs, C. M., “The Genesis of Luther’s Doctrine of the 
Church,” in The Lutheran Church Review, 34:141-152; “The Office 
of Over-Sight in the Lutheran Church,” Appendix to the Minutes of 
the Ministerium of Pennsylvania for 1892. 

4 The full quotation is, “Denn wo das Evangelion gepredigt wird, 
und die Sacrament recht gebraucht, da ist die heilig christliche 
Kirche; und sie ist nicht mit Gesetzen und aeusserlicher Pracht an 
Staett und Zeit, an Person und Geberde gebunden.” Dr. Martin 
Luther's deutsche Schriften... Erlangen-Frankfurter Ausgabe, 
24:343. 

5 Lowrie, op. cit., 338; Troeltsch, Protestantism and Progress, 102. 

6 Koestlin, op. cit., 571, 2, “The peculiar mission of Luther, how- 
ever, does not lie at all within the sphere of concrete, practical orga- 
nization. His great fundamental principles as to the nature of the 
Church....still stand out in their full force and unclouded light.” 
Lindsay, A History of the Reformation, 1:403, “Luther was as in- 
different to forms of Church government as John Wesley, and, like 
Wesley, every step he took in providing for a separate organization 
was forced upon him as a practical necessity. To the very last he 
cherished the hope that there might be no need for any great change 
in the established government of the Church. He had no desire to 
make changes for the sake of change.’’ 


8 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Two conceptions lay at the basis of everything which he 
said or did in relation to the organization of the Christian 
fellowship into churches. The first of these was that of 
the Spiritual Priesthood of all Believers;’ the second was 
the idea that the secular government is ordained by God. 
and that no person or agency may supersede it. He there- 
fore held that the Christian magistracy might well repre- 
. sent the Christian community, and, in its name or asso- 

ciated with it, might undertake the organization and su- 
erintendence of the Church.° 

Luther indeed counselled with the people on the matter 
of organization and in 1523 wrote to the Senate of Prague 
which had asked for instructions for forming a church or- 
ganization in complete separation from the Papal See.° 


First prepare yourselves by prayer, and then assemble together 
in God’s name and proceed to the election. Let the most eminent and 
respected among you lay their hands with good courage on the chosen 
eandidates, and, when this has taken place in several parishes, let 
the pastors have a right to elect a head or superintendent to visit 
them, as Peter visited the first Christian communities. 


Such ideas are said to have been popular and widely dif- 
fused at that time in Germany and Switzerland.’®  Illus- 


7 Sehling, “Church Government,” in The New Schaff-Herzog En- 
cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, I11:95; Richard, op. cit., 14. Com- 
pare “An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Na- 
tion,” in Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia Edition, I1:61 ff.; 
Walther, Kirche und Amt, 194 ff. 

8 Lindsay, op. cit., 1:400-1; Decker, “Luther’s Theory of the 
Right of the Temporal Authorities to Reform the Church,” in The 
Lutheran Church Review, 37: 334-63; Jacobs, “Notes on Kirchen- 
Regiment,” 15-17. It should be remembered that Luther’s word, 
“Obrigkeit,’”? which is imperfectly translated as “government,” was 
to Luther a personal thing, whether represented by an individual, 
e. g., Philip of Hesse, or by a group, e. g., the Senate of Prague. This 
“Obrigkeit” was divinely ordained and thus had an authority which 
man could not take away from it. (Suggested by C. M. Jacobs in a 
personal interview). 

9 Von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, 459; “De 
Instituendis Ministris Ecclesiae; ad clarissimum Senatum Pragen- 
sem Boemiae, Martinus Lutherus,” in Volume 2, Jena Edition, 545 ff. 
Koestlin, op. cit., 549, says that the expression of Luther to the Sen- 
ate of Prague is in accord with his common view. 

10 Ranke, op. cit., in loco. 


—_— eer ee ee 


of the Lutheran Church in America 9 


trations of other instances of the formulation of regula- 
tions for Christian communities are: the Wittenberg Or- 
dinances, 1522; the Ordinances of Leisnig, 1523, and Mag- 
deburg, 1524. | 


All three are examples of the local authority within a small com- 
munity, endeavoring, at the prompting of preachers and people, to 
express in definite regulations some of the demands of the new evan- 
gelical life. Luther himself thought these earlier regulations pre- 
mature, and insisted that the Wittenberg be cancelled. He knew that 
changes must come; but he hoped to see them make their way gradu- 
ally.14 


In the earlier period of the Reformation Luther expressed 
himself in the same manner as a general rule, but 


the fullest and maturest statement, however, of Luther’s views con- 
cerning the Church is found in that important treatise published in 
June, 1520, under the title, ‘Concerning Popery at Rome Against the 
Famous Romanist at Leipsic.’!2 


In this, in substance, he explains to the laymen what Chris- 
tianity really is and unfolds to them the essence of the 
Christian Church. However, if he attacks the supremacy 
of the outer organization of the Roman Church, he just as 
forcibly disputes the supremacy of man’s own inner think- 
ing, and sets up the Scriptures as the supreme and only 
authoritative rule of faith, according to which church or- 
ganizations must be adapted.*® 


THE PROPOSAL AT THE SYNOD OF HOMBERG AND LUTHER’S AT- 
TITUDE TOWARD IT. 


Had these principles become universally adopted there 
would have thus early arisen in Germany a democratic 
church. Indeed a proposal to establish a church founded 


PrewlAngsaAy, O..Cit., 401..2. 

12 Spaeth, ‘“Luther’s Doctrine of the Church,” in The Lutheran 
Church Review, 6:279-80. 

18 Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia Edition, 1:3829-94. 
Jacobs, “Notes on Kirchen-Regiment,” 37-40. 


10 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


on them was made by the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the 
same to be set up in his principality, at the Synod of Hom- 
berg in 1526. In this matter Philip was influenced by 
Francis Lambert, a Frenchman from Avignon, a Francis- 
can who had been converted to Protestantism. Under the 
proposed arrangement the Gospel was to be preached in 
every place and then churches were to be organized to con- 
sist of true believers, with a common agreement among the 
churches on certain rules of discipline. A_ territorial 
church was thus to be set up which was to choose its own 
pastors, who were to be called bishops. Self-government 
was to be exercised by the churches in all matters. Each 
year a Synod was to be held at which each church was to 
be represented by its bishops and certain delegates. At 
the Synod general business was to be considered. At each 
meeting of the body three visitors were to be chosen to in- 
vestigate the condition of each church. ‘‘The plan may be 
described as the Congregational System with an infusion of 
Presbyterian elements.’ Rank says concerning this,%® 

The ideas are the same on which the French, Scotch, and Ameri- 
can Churches were afterward founded, and indeed on which the ex- 
istence and development of North America may truly be said to rest. 
Their historical importance are beyond all calculation. We trace 
them in the very first attempt at the constitution of a church; they 
were adopted by a small German Synod. 

But these ideas were never put into effect and largely be- 
cause of Luther’s attitude toward them and the plan which 
they underlay. However, it must be kept clearly in mind, 
his objection were all of a practical nature; he had no scrip- 
tural or traditional scruples.1* He desired that the tem- 
poral rulers should retain control of the churches as those 
most suited to control, and because of their obligations as 
rulers.1*7. This was in perfect accord with his whole view of 


14 Fisher, The Reformation, 415. 

15 Op. cit., 461. 

16 Sehling, op. cit., 94. 

17 Ibid: “the Reformers themselves accounted the government’s 
position not so much a source of rights as a sum of obligations the 
government was to fulfill.” 


of the Lutheran Church in America 11 


popular participation in public affairs, and in accord with 
the commonly accepted principles of the day. Luther, here 
as in the Peasants’ Revolt, failed to see grounds for con- 
fidence in the qualifications of the common people. 


SECULAR RULERS ARE GIVEN CONTROL OF THE CHURCH IN 
GERMANY. 


The Lutheran Church in Germany was accordingly or- 
ganized under the control of the leaders of the various prin- 
cipalities. The lead in this movement was taken in Elec- 
toral Saxony under the leadership of Luther himself. The 
Diet of Speyer in 1526 gave the evangelical princes and 
towns the right to order public worship and ecclesiastical 
organization within their own domains.*® In this connec- 
tion Luther advised the Elector of Saxony to conduct a 
careful visitation in order to find out the state of affairs 
in his own territory, but in answer to correspondents he 
made it plain that as much local freedom as possible should 
be allowed, and that each community should find out what 
suited it best.1° For this visitation the land was divided 
into districts and the Visitors then appointed were allowed 
to remain as a “primitive evangelical consistory” in order 
to supervise their districts. A pastor, called a superin- 
tendent, was appointed in each of the four districts or “‘cir- 
cles” into which Saxony had been divided for the purpose 
of the Visitation, and these were to act with the magis- 
tracy in all ecclesiastical matters.2° This arrangement was 
widely adopted in Germany. 

The arrangement whereby the secular rulers became also . 
the heads of the churches in their respective principalities 


18 Jacobs, “Notes on Kirchen-Regiment,” 14, 15; Lindsay, op. cit., 
1:404. 


19 Ibid. 

20 Ibid., 406-11. It was later pointed out by the visitors that 
hitherto no arrangement had been made to give the whole ecclesiasti- 
cal administration in the principality one central authority. Though 
the Electoral Prince was recognized as the supreme ruler he could 
not supervise everything efficiently. Consequently consistorial courts 
were set up. Ibid., 412-5. 


12 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


thus came to be the form of organization which Luther 
approved.”! Yet again it ought to be said that this was 
not to him a matter of vital importance, and emphasizes 
that the Lutheran theory of church government, and this 
history was borne out, is that the form is variable according 
to the conditions and circumstances of the various times 
and places. 


VIEWS OF CHURCH POLITY AS EXPRESSED IN THE 
CONFESSIONS. 


Important as Luther’s views are rightly held to be in 
all matters in connection with the Lutheran Church, it is 
however to the Confessions of the Church that one ought to 
go in order to find the definite and accepted principles and 
doctrines. These Lutheran Confessional writings set forth 
the Lutheran principles of church polity with clarity and 
finality. 

Article Seven of the Augsburg Confession”? lays down 
the general principle of the church: 


Also they teach, that one holy church is to continue forever. But 
Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly 
taught and the Sacraments rightly administered. And unto the true 
unity of the Church, it is sufficient to agree concerning the doctrine 
of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it 
necessary that human traditions, rites, or ceremonies instituted by 
men, should be alike everywhere, as St. Paul saith, ‘There is one 
faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.’ 


This is, as has been shown, in perfect accord with Luth- 
er’s common teaching. Articles Eight and Fourteen of 
the Augustana are not generally regarded as basic state- 
ments of church polity. 

It is held on good authority that the principles of Luth- 


21 For a summary of Luther’s view, Koestlin, op. cit., 2:562-71; 
a late statement of Luther is in his Von den Conciliis und Kirchen, 
cited by Decker, op. cit., 37:340. Luther’s views are also expressed in 
the Catechisms. 

22 Jacobs, (Ed.) The Book of Concord, 1:39. 


— 


OO 


of the Lutheran Church in America 13 


eran Church Polity are outlined specifically in Article 
Twenty-Eight of the Augustana and in Melanchthon’s Ap- 
pendix to the Smalkald Articles.?° 

Article Twenty-Eight, of “Ecclesiastical Power,” ** is 
one of the articles presented in the Confession in which are 
enumerated abuses corrected by the Confessors. It sets 
forth plainly and firmly that the ‘“‘bishops have no power 
to ordain anything contrary to the Gospel,” and while it 
definitely says that the intention is not to take the rule from 
the bishops, this is made contingent upon their suffering 
the Gospel to be purely taught, and upon the relaxation of 
certain observances. For “if they will remit none, let 
them look how they will give account to God for this, that 
by their obstinacy they afford cause of schism.” In other 
words, it is said, that bishops may continue in office and 
to have power and rule so long as the people of the church 
are satisfied that they are proceeding accordingly to the 
Scriptures. This, of course, was a direct blow at the jus 
divinum of bishops, which was logically carried on to papal 
supremacy by divine right. Here, then, the Confession is 
in complete accord with Luther as to ecclesiastical power. 
The Lutheran idea was that the Word of God should be 
preached, that some office must be created for this preach- 
ing, and that some organization for which there was no 
divinely ordained form must be set up to care for these 
needs.”® 

The Smalkald Articles were written and presented by a 
body of theologians assembled at Smalkald in 1537. In Ar- 
ticle Twelve,?° “Of The Church,” the essential elements of 
the Holy Christian Church are again set forth as the Word 
of God and the true faith, and other and additional marks 
of the Church are denied to be essential as beyond Holy. 
Scripture. In the Appendix, ‘Of the Power and Primacy 


23 Jacobs, “Church Polity,” in The Pe ed ie Cyclopedia, 102 ff. 
24 Jacobs, The Book of Concord, 1:63 ff. 
25 Harnack, A., “Organization of ae Early Church,” in The New 
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 8 :267, 
26 Jacobs, The Book of Concord, 1:334-5. 


14 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


of the Pope,’’’* there is to be found a complete and sweeping 
denial of the claims of the papacy or of any order of persons 
to have dominion over the Church, but as the Church de- 
termines, according to the Word.”° 


THE VIEWS OF ZWINGLI AND CALVIN. 


While not so important to subject here mention at least 
should be made of the views of Zwingli and Calvin, reform- 
ers of great importance.*® In Zurich, Zwingli saw, as Luther 
had seen, that the body of the people was not prepared 
for self-government in ecclesiastical matters and accord- 
ingly he committed their control to the Great Council which 
governed the city politically and which was considered to 
represent the ecclesiastical as well as the civil community.*° 
The Zurich arrangement in all its essential characteristics 
was adopted by the other Swiss Cantons.** Calvin’s doc- 
trine of the constitution of the Church and its relation to 
the State was set forth in his “Institutes.’’**. His idea was 
that the Church should be the official conscience of the State; 
he thought of a theocracy. He presented the presbyterian 
system of which some description will be given later. At 
this point it is enough to say that it was presented as a 
divinely-ordained system.*° 

It is of more practical value to the purpose here to in- 
quire as to the forms of organization of the churches which 
followed after the theories and doctrines before described. 


27 Ibid., 338-52. 

28 Richard, ON. Cth Cate 

29 Lowrie, op. cit., 42- 605 Krauth, “Church Polity,” in The Luth- 
eran Church Review, 2:330-1. 

30 Gieseler, A Text Book of Church History, 4:538. 

31 Fisher, op. cit., 416, 7. 

32 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4: Chapters 
1-5, -Ligiz. 

33 Fisher, op. cit., 417-20; Sehling, op. cit., 92-96; Krauth, op. 
cit., 331-3. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 15 


FORMS OF CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS IN EUROPE WHICH IN- 
FLUENCED THE FORM OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH. 


IN LUTHERAN GERMANY. 


In Lutheran Germany, by virtue of the decree of the Diet 
of Speyer (1529,) there developed a State Church polity, 
and the institution of the Superintendent became a funda- 
mental feature.**. The princes were given the controlling 
position not because they were considered higher in grace 
or right by divine grant but because as the most influential 
members of the Church theirs was the greater responsibil- 
ity. The common view-point of the day was aristocratic; 
one can hardly expect anything different in the constitution 
of the churches when the established order of the State is | 
remembered. True, the Anabaptists of all kinds were op- | 
posed to such an establishment but it must be remembered 
that they were dissatisfied with the whole state of affairs 
and were revolutionary in all their attitudes. The organ- 
ization of the religious life among them, when they had such 
an organization, was that of an uninfluential and revolting 
minority.*°. 

Out of the system of princely prerogative in Com 
there were elaborated three systems as the years went by.*° 
First, there was the Episcopal System, which persisted 
throughout the whole period of Lutheran Orthodoxy. The 
prince was the Summus Episcopus, pro tempore, by virtue 
of his secular office.*7 Secondly, there was the Territorial 
System controlled by the idea that the chief end of ecclesias- 
tical government was the maintenance of Peace. This 
came to be Caesaro-Papacy or the absolute control of the 
church by the rulers by natural right, for it was believed 
that the True Church was invisible, while the Church on 
its visible side was a purely human institution and hence to 


34 Ibid., 320-6. 

35 «6But for influence later exerted, see Troeltsch, op. cit., 104 ff. 

386 Krauth, op. cit., 326-9; Richard, op. cit., 32- ‘4: Jacobs, “Notes 
on Kirchen-Regiment,”’ 21-5. 

37 Lowrie, op. cit., 40, footnote 10. 


16 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


be governed like all human corporations. Thirdly, there 
was the Collegial System which held that the Church was 
under no other authority than the will of its members and 
by their agreement everything was to be determined.*® 


Under all these systems, the practical determination of all ques- 
tions was in the hands of a consistorium appointed by the ruler, con- 
sisting of theologians and jurists, and acting through superintend- 
ents, who, either themselves or through appointed visitors, closely 
inspected the congregations, pastors, candidates, schools, and insti- 
tutions of mercy.®® 


IN THE CALVINISTIC CHURCHES. 


As stated before, Zwingli had adopted the system of state 
control in Zurich. But the Reformed Branch of the Prot- 
estant Church rather followed Calvin than Zwingli. Hos- 
tility of the government in France to the movement for re- 
form complicated the organization of the Church in that 
country.*® It was compelled to organize as an independent 
association. Calvin’s polity, however, was most completely 
worked out in Geneva and it represented a subordination of 
the State to the Church. In this respect his reforms were 
thorough and consciously social and political, as well as re- 
ligious.** Upon Calvin’s second entry into the city, in 1541, 
the Council resolved to give the Church of the city a consti- 
tution. After much opposition and subsequent revision 
the famous Ordonnances Ecclesiastiques de Geneve in their 
first form was produced. They assumed their final form in 
1561. It must not, however, be assumed that Calvin’s re- 
entry into the city was immediately to give him mastery 
there. Years were to elapse—1541-55—before his period 


38 Jacobs, “Church Polity,” in Lutheran Cyclopedia, 102 ff; 
Fisher, op. cit., 415, 6; Sehling, “Collegialism,” and “Territorialism,” 
in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 
3:159-60; 11:308. 

39 Jacobs, A History of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the 
United States, 14. 

40 Gieseler, op. cit., 4:538, 9. 

41 Smith, The Age of the Reformation, 247. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 17 


of triumph may be said to have begun, and even then he 
was never able to put fully into effect his ideas of an eccles- 
iastical organization. This was indeed done in the Protest- 
ant Church of France. But when the Ordonnances of 1541 
are compared with his ideas as set forth in the “Institutes,” 
and with the later developments in Genera, one can see that 
he sacrificed a great deal in order to satisfy the magistrates 
of Geneva.* 

Following Calvin’s tenets the church organization as de- 
scribed in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Pastoral Epis- 
tles was adopted as of divine ordination.*® This embraced 
the combination of two classes of “elders,” the ruling and 
the teaching elders, who constituted the governing body of 
the congregation, the consistory—Kirk Session in Scotland. 
These congregations sent delegates from the consistories, 
both of the ruling and teaching eldership, to make up Syn- 
ods, through whose agency the corresponding church cir- 
cuit was governed. In the French Evangelical Church 
there was also a General Synod; in Scotland, a General As- 
sembly. This is but a brief description of the essential fea- 
tures of the Reformed Church government, which descrip- 
tion is included here because of the occasional influence of 
the system upon Lutheran polity.‘ In some countries where 
the Lutheran Church has come into close contact with the 
Reformed it has received important modifications as a re- 
sult of the contact. Thus the synodical form of govern- 
ment for the church is a Reformed contribution to church 
polity, for while the Lutheran Church in Germany had 
synods they were rather meetings for the receiving of in- 
structions from the superintendents than for the decision 
of church business.* 


aoe Lindsay, .0p.1cit..- 2212758: 

43 Troeltsch, op. cit., 102, 3; Friedburg, Lehrbuch des Katholis- 
chen und Evangelischen Kirchenrechts, 54, 5. 

44 Sehling, op. cit., 3:92-96. 

45 Jacobs, A History of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the 
United States, 14. 


18 The Development of the Synodical Polity 
IN HOLLAND. 


It is important that a more careful study be given to the 
constitution of both the Lutheran and the Reformed 
Churches in Holland, for from this source has come much of 
the influence which shaped the American Lutheran Polity.*® 

Luther’s work of reform found immediate sympathy in 
Holland. Persecution followed but the new ideas spread 
even as the persecution continued. As is so often the case 
persecution led to excesses and the excesses of the Anabap- 
tists did more to injure the Lutheran cause than did the 
efforts at persecution. It is claimed that Lutheran congre- 
gations began to be formed as early as 1528 but Lutheran- 
ism remained merely a name for a “powerful tendency” for 
a time before it was brought into organized form. It was 
not long until Calvinism came to supersede Lutheranism in 
Holland, for Lutheranism did not offer to the most radical 
the degree of antagonism to Rome which they desired. 
Linguistic reasons also entered in. The struggle for posi- 
tion continued until in 1561 the antagonism crystallized in 
the Belgic Confession which was directed not only against 
Rome, but also against the Augsburg Confession. The 
Lutherans were then in a decided minority. In 1588 Cal- 
vinism was triumphant in all the United Provinces. 

The first Lutheran congregation organized under the 
Augsburg Confession was formed in Woerden in 1566. In 
the next year a congregation was known of in Antwerp and 
it had appointed elders. The feeling between the Reformed 
and the Lutherans at this time was bitter because the Luth- 
erans insisted upon a moderate course with respect to the 
magistrates when the Duke of Alva was active in his pur- 
pose to exterminate all Protestants in the land. For this 


46 What is said on this point is largely after Schmucker, B.M., 
“The Organization of the Congregation in the Early Lutheran 
Churches in America,” in The Lutheran Church Review, 6:197 ff; 
and Jacobs, A History of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the 
United States, 21-45. Jacobs is taken from Brandt, History oj the 
Reformaton and Other Ecclesiastical Transactions in and about the 
Low Countries. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 19 


reason the Lutherans received privileges which were denied 
to the Reformed. During this whole time William of Or- 
ange was urging a union of the two groups for political 
reasons. His efforts were in vain. 

When the danger from Spain was passed and the North- 
ern Provinces had secured religious freedom, the struggle 
of Lutheranism for existence was not over. In the Synod 
of Amsterdam in January, 1600 it was resolved “that the 
ministers should lay before the magistrates an account of 
the places where Lutherans met, with reasons for suppress- 
ing the conventicles.’*? This Reformed Synod continued to 
harass the Lutherans, but in a few years it allowed religious 
services to them on the condition that they hold them at 
hours which would give the least offence and scandal to the 
Reformed. But the pastor was informed that if the rule 
was not strictly observed, they would be placed on the same 
footing with the rest of the towns of Holland and West 
Friesland where no other religion than the Reformed was 
allowed.*® The antagonism continued and in instances 
which could be multiplied it can be seen to have been active, 
although it is claimed that it was, “more annoying than 
formidable.”’*® All through this period the large congre- 
gation at Amsterdam was active and a long succession of 
pastors, who had been trained in Germany, labored effec- 
tively, though quietly, among the people.. 

William of Orange and the States-General, influenced by 
the Calvinistic form of church government, framed the 
regulations for the government of the churches in Holland 
according to the Hcclesiastical Laws of 1577. These pre- 
vailed in the Lutheran as well as in the Reformed Churches. 
Here is an important source of certain features of Amer- 
ican Lutheran Church government which came through the 
Dutch Lutherans who settled in New York and the German 
Reformed who settled in Pennsylvania. Under these Laws, 
four classes of officers were provided for: pastors, doctors 


47 eater OP Cit. 221. 
487 Ibdid., 16, 7; 
49 A eats a cit., 35. 


20 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


or professors of theology, elders, and deacons. Aside from 
attention to certain regulations for the conduct of worship, 
administration of the sacraments, education, etc., special 
note ought to be taken of the following. A proper call to 
the ministry was required and a minister elected to a con- 
gregation had to submit to an examination before the elders 
of the church. The ministers of every town were to hold 
a pastoral conference every two weeks for common im- 
provement. All dissensions between ministers were to be 
settled by the ministers themselves when possible; if not, by 
the elders; if these were unsuccessful, by the magistrate. 
Annual visitations were to be made throughout the country 
churches by two elders and one or two ministers of every 
capitol town. The lay eldership was established thus, 


The magistrates of every place shall choose from among themselves 
more or fewer persons, according to religion, in order to assist the 
inexperienced in the business of religion, in order to assist the pastors 
in church affairs, and to be present at their meetings, to the end 
that, if anything be transacted there of which the government ought 
to be informed, they may give an account of it, and do such things as 
the law has annexed to their office. 


Deacons to assist the poor were also provided for.°° With 
the exception of doctrine the Lutheran Church in Holland 
was in all respects like the Reformed. 

In Amsterdam two church buildings and six ministers 
served one congregation of 30,000 souls. This congrega- 
tion bore the burden of the support of the Lutheran Church 
throughout the whole country, and so must have profoundly 
affected their constitutions. The congregation at Leyden 
with 700 members and two ministers ranked second in im- 
portance. 


50 Brandt, op, cit., 1:318-22. Benthem, Condition oj the Churches 
and Schools of Holland, published in the latter part of the 17th cen- 


tury sets forth in full the regulations of the Lutheran Church in that 
country. 





of the Lutheran Church in America 21 


THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMSTER- 
DAM. 


The Constitution of the Lutheran Church in Amsterdam, 
originally adopted in 1597, revised in 1614, and accepted as 
the general constitution for the Lutheran Churches in the 
Netherlands in 1644, bore the title, 


Kerkelijke Ordonnantie, for the government, in the doctrines 
of the Divine Word, administration of the Sacraments and other 
matters pertaining to the administration of the Church, of the 
Congregation and Church at Amsterdam, which assembles in a house 
and adheres to the genuine unaltered Augsburg Confession, pre- 
pared and published by the Ministers and Deputies there, in the year 
of Christ 1597.51 


In 1682 it was materially changed and brought to its final 
shape. 

The Constitution is divided into two parts of which a 
summary follows. Part I, Chapter 1. Of Doctrine. The 
Book of Concord, as now known, is laid down as the doc- 
trinal basis. Chapter 2. Times and Places of Assemblage 
for Preaching. Chapter 3. Of Sacrament of Holy Bap- 
tism. Chapter 4. Of Sermon of Repentance and the Ab- 
solution before the Lord’s Supper. Chapter 5. Of the Ad- 
ministration of the same. Chapter 6. Of Christian Dis- 
cipline and the Ban. Chapter 7. Of Marriage. Chapter 
8. Of the Visitation of the Sick and the Poor. Chapter 
9. Of the Burial of the Dead. Part II, 


The Christelijcke Ordonnantie of the Congregation in Amsterdam, 
of the Conventu Ecclesiastico or Consistory, of the Calling, Office, 
Ministrations of the Preachers, Deputies [Deputy Elders 1682] and 
Deacons.*2 


Chapter 1. Of the Consistory. To this belong the Preach- 
ers, the Deputy Elders, and such other persons as by usage 
of the Congregation are called thereto. The oldest Pastor 


51 Schmucker, op. cit., 199 ff. 
52 Ibid., 200. 


rape The Development of the Synodical Polity 


is to preside. He or the oldest Elder shall present business, 
call on each for an opinion, and take the vote. In matters 
of doctrine, the Pastors alone decided, (1682, after consulta- 
tion with the Elders;) in matters of government, the ma- 
jority. In matters of great importance, all former Elders 
and also the Deacons shall decide. Occasions of discipline 
of Preachers, Elders, Deacons, and other members are sub- 
ject to action by the Consistory. Chapter 2. Of the Call, 
Office, Duties, Salary, and Dismissal of Preachers. The 
Call consists of nomination and election by Preachers, Dep- 
uty and former Elders, Ruling Deacons and former Dea- 
cons. Chapter 8. Of the Call and Office of Deputy El- 
ders. Preachers, Elders, and Deacons select twice the 
number to be elected, whose names are presented to the con- 
gregation. Preachers, former Elders, Deacons, former 
Deacons, and contributing members, in this order, present 
their votes, those who receive most votes being elected. El- 
ders are installed, after promises, with the laying on of 
hands and prayer. Their duties are: to watch that the 
Word be purely preached, sacraments administered as 
Christ commanded, and constitution observed; that salaries 
are promptly paid; to see that all sin, shame, and offence 
be avoided in the congregation; to keep accurate account of 
all expenditures; after terms expire to attend the Consist- 
ory when called; to carry out all measures taken by their 
predecessors; on all festive and Sunday services to stand at 
the church door with plates to receive offerings for use of 
the church. Chapter 4. Of the Call, Office and Duties of 
the Deacons. They are elected and installed in the same 
manner as the Elders. Their duties are: To collect offer- 
ings at the church door for the poor, and keep an account 
of the same; to annually visit families of the Congregation 
and receive their offerings for the poor; to call upon dis- 
tinguished Lutherans who are visiting in the community 
and ask an offering for the poor; to receive all legacies in- 
tended for the poor; to use and apply all these offerings for 
the benefit of the poor; and to keep and account for all these 


of the Lutheran Church in America Zo 


receipts. Then follow full directions for the care and re- 
lief of the poor, the needy, the stranger, in a thoroughly or- 
ganized system. Therefore the Deacons have nothing to 
do with the general affairs of the congregation but are 
concerned solely with the care of the poor and needy. Chap- 
ter 5. Of the Office and Duties of the Comforter of the 
Sick, and the Sexton—a two-fold office. Chapter 6. Of 
the Obligations of the Congregation to its Preachers, El- 
ders, and Deacons. Chapter 7. Rules for Those who Re- 
ceive Alms of the Congregations. In the Articles by which 
the Preachers of the Augsburg Confession in Amsterdam 
were called and by which they were to be governed, adopted 
in 1607, the statements of doctrine as given in the Con- 
stitution are repeated, but an additional provision com- 
mands that the use of the Sacraments and Ministrations of 
the Church are to be withheld from certain groups, namely, 
Papists, Calvinists, Anabaptists, etc., who are said to be 
dangerous to the faithful. 
Of this Constitution Schmucker says,*? 


This Amsterdam constitution is one of the most carefully prepared, 
well-digested instruments of the kind ever produced, very full in all 
needed provisions for the administration of the affairs of the con- 
gregation, and pervaded by a devout spirit; sound in the faith and 
watchful of the life of Pastors, Officers, and members. It well de- 
serves the prominent place it holds among the sources of Lutheran 
organization in the New World. 


IN ENGLAND. 


By way of another stream of immigration the Lutheran 
Church of America was affected by European practices of 
the time. This was through the stream of those who came 
through London or in some other way had been influenced 
by the Constitution of St. Mary’s Church, Savoy, London. 
St. Mary’s was organized in 1692 by the members of the 


53 Ibid., 202. 


24 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


older Hamburg Church who lived west of Temple Bar.** 
They secured the use of Savoy Chapel, consecrated in 1694, 
and known as St. Mary’s, Savoy. This became the spir- 
itual home of all the Germans in London; they looked upon 
it as the representative church. Its first pastor was M. 
Irenaeus Crusius during whose pastorate the constitution. 
was adopted—1695. 


The preface says, ‘We, the present Pastor and Deputy Vorsteher, 
have taken the Kirchenordnung used by our brethren in Holland, 
have caused it to be translated into German, and, except for urgent 
reasons have altered nothing therein, in order that our unity might 
the more clearly appear.’®® 


The Constitution is divided into two parts, the first con- 
taining the Kirchenordnung; the second containing the Or- 
der of Service. The part containing the Kirchenordnung, 
as the preface states, was taken almost exactly from the 
Amsterdam Order, only a few minor changes having been 
made. The Second Part differs greatly from the Amster- 
dam Order, the chief differences being that there was but 
one class of lay officers, Vorsteher, to whom all the duties 
of Elders and Deacons in the Amsterdam Church were 
committed; no comforter of the sick, only a sexton; con- 
tributing members have part in the election of the Pastor 
as well as in that of Vorsteher; there is no Consistory but 
simply a meeting of the Vorsteher at which the Pastor does. 
not preside, and at which he probably is not even present. 
With these differences allowed, the very words of the Am- 
sterdam Book are used. 


IN SWEDEN. 


Thus have been described the important European prac- 
tices in church organization and administration among 


54 Burckhardt, Kirchen-Geschichte der Deutschen Gemeinden in 
London, gives a full description of the whole matter of the Lutheran 
Churches in London; Sachse, “The Genesis of the German Lutheran 
eee in the Land of Penn,” in The Lutheran Church Review, 

:60 ff. 

55 Schmucker, op. cit., 202, 3. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 25 


the Lutherans of the day which came to be used by the or- 
ganizers of the Lutheran Churches in America. There 
were, however, several other sources from which inspira- 
tion and example may have been drawn and which there- 
fore should be mentioned. First, there was the Church of 
Sweden.*® The Reformation in Sweden began with the 
King, and he stopped at nothing until he had brought about 
a complete reformation in worship and doctrine and admin- 
istration. 'The Church has not been bound to any single 
form of church government but has evolved a combination 
of elements belonging to various forms. It is at once con- 
gregational, presbyterial, and episcopalian. It has retained 
what has been thought by some*’ to have been a pre-Chris- 
tian usage in the regulation of the temporal affairs in each 
parish by an assembly of voting members, under the pres- 
idency of the Pastor. This assembly has nothing to do 
with the teaching or worship or discipline. In order to 
guard against excessive centralization there are in each 
parish several administrative boards, of which the Church 
Council is the most important. This originated at the in- 
stance of the pastors for lay participation in disciplinary 
cases, and was legally sanctioned in 1650 and 1675. An- 
other board, of pre-Reformation origin, aids the Pastor in 
the financial matters of the parish; while a third board has 
charge of the schools. As to the general administration of 
the Church the law of 1686 said, ‘“The oversight, care, and 
protection of the church and congregation of God in Swe- 
den are intrusted by God to the King.’’®® 

The king’s power, however, is limited not only by an oath 
pledging him to the Confession, but also by the recognition 
that all matters pertaining to the essentials in worship, 
church controversies, and church discipline are beyond his 
sphere. The Reichstag, convening at least every three 
years, decides, in connection with the king, the most im- 


56 Wordsworth, The National Church of Sweden; Jacobs, op. cit., 
Chapter 8. 

57 = Ibid., 74. 

58 Ibid., 76. 


26 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


portant church matters as prescribed by church law. In 
this assembly are representatives of the four estates—the 
nobility, the clergy, the citizens, and the peasants. The 
king has full oversight of the congregations and exercises 
it partly through the ‘‘Minister of Worship,” and partly also 
through the bishops and consistories. 


The Church in Sweden has no other general representation than 
that of the State... the idea of a state church, or the close union of 
Church and State, is realized there almost to the extreme, neverthe- 
less not without especial balance of power, for the maintenance of 
church freedom.°? 


The diocesan consistories occupy an important place, 
their decision in certain cases being necessary before a mat- 
ter can be laid before the king. The episcopacy has been 
retained but the bishop corresponds rather to the superin- 
tendents in Germany than to Anglican bishops. No special 
order has been claimed for the bishops, although ‘‘apostolic 
succession” has been maintained. But in this no peculiar 
virtue is understood to be given.*° The dioceses are di- 
vided into districts under the care of ‘“‘provosts” who act 
as administrators under the bishops and the consistories. 


DIVERSITY IN GERMANY. 


It has already been suggested that not all of the princi- 
palities in Germany had like arrangements for administra- 
tion of church government. Generally speaking the fol- 
lowing description sets forth the more common arrange- 
ment. 


The supreme civil rulers of every Lutheran State are clothed also 
with dignity, and perform the functions of supremacy in the Church. 
The very essence of civil government seems manifestly to point out 
the necessity of investing the sovereign with this spiritual supremacy, 
and the tacit consent of the Lutheran Churches has confirmed the 
dictates of wise policy in this respect,.... The councils, or societies, 


59 Quoted in Jacobs, op. cit., 76, 7. 
60 Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, 153. 


of the Lutheran Church in America at 


appointed by the sovereign to watch over the interests of the Church, 
and to govern and direct its affairs, are composed of persons versed 
in the knowledge both of civil and ecclesiastical law, and, according 
to a very ancient denomination, are called consistories.®! 


But there were some exceptions which are important 
to be noted.*2 That within the territory of the Mar- 
gravate of Brandenburg presented a most extraordinary 
instance.** In the Duchies of Cleve, Julich, and Berg," the 
Presbyterians or Reformed from the Netherlands, coming 
as refugees, had secured a full, self-governing presbyterial 
system in the congregation, classis, and synod. Under this 
influence the Lutheran Church in these areas had also 
adopted the same system. The Lutheran Kirchenordnung 
in force in the first half of the 18th century says, ‘‘Each 
congregation shall have its own Elders and Vorsteher, who 
with the Pastors of the place constitute a Presbytery or 
Consistory.’®> There were to be four to six elders, cne 
half elected each year by the Presbytery. Those going 
out of office could nominate their successors. The duties 
of the elders included the over-sight of the spiritual con- 
cerns of the ministers and congregations. “Their whole 
spiritual office was ordered after the manner of Calvin at 
Geneva, and of the Refugee Presbyterian Congregation.’ 
The deacons were in charge of the alms, and were appointed 
either by the government, or like the elders, by the Pres- 
bytery or Consistory. 

The Classis met once a year and was cemposed of all the 
ministers in the district, with one elder from each congre- 
gation, and with schoolmasters and kwesters as desired. 
Above the Classis was the Synod which also met annually, 
and was composed of pastors and elders. A general Synod 


61 Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, 4:278, 9. 

62 Schmucker, op. cit., 209-11. 

63 Gieseler, op. cit., 4: 539. 

64 Krauth, “Church Polity,” in The Lutheran Church Review, 
2 ioda-o. 

65 Schmucker, op. cit., 210. 

66 Ibid. 


28 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


of representatives—four pastors and two elders from the 
Synod of each province—was the highest body. 


We cannot but think that Muehlenberg’s familiarity with these ar- 
rangements in Mark Brandenburg was a part in the training which 
influenced him in the organization of the Church here.*? 


It is further known that Spener at Halle advocated such a 
system of church government, and commended the pro- 
visions just described which were so unfamiliar generally 
in Germany. Muehlenberg must have been influenced, 
while at Halle, by the attitude of this important figure.” 


CONCLUSIONS. 


THE LUTHERAN PRINCIPLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
CHURCH—CONFORMITY TO THE WORD OF GOD, AND 
ADAPTATION TO EXISTING SOCIAL CONDITIONS. 


It should be clear from the preceding study that the body 
of precedent relating to the organization of the Lutheran 
Churches in Europe was varied in content. That this was 
the case is aS one would expect when the Lutheran theory 
for the government of the church is understood. As ex- 


67 Ibid., 211; Henry Melchoir Muehlenberg is commonly known 
as the “Patriarch of the Lutheran Church in America.” He was 
born in 1711 in the Electorate of Hanover. Ordained to the ministry 
he served for a time in the Church in Germany. Having a desire to 
go as a missionary he accepted the call of certain German Lutheran 
Congregations in Pennsylvania, extended to him through Zeigen- 
hagen, Hanoverian Court-Preacher in London, and arrived in Phila- 
delphia, 25 November, 1742. Finding the Church in a sad state he 
set about the work of reorganization. He had a semi-official position 
by virtue of his relation to the mission society at Halle and so 
claimed a supervisory power. Under his vigorous leadership the 
Church in Pennsylvania was developed, while he made his influence 
felt among some of the Lutheran Churches in New York, New Jersey, 
Maryland, and Georgia. He laid down the principles of congrega- 
tional and synodical organization, in addition to injecting a whole- 
some spirit into the churches touched by his influence. He died in 
1787. The standard work on the subject is Mann, The Life and 


Times of H. M. Muehlenberg, a production of the highest character, 
and thoreughly reliable. 


68 Schmucker, op. cit., 211. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 29 


pressed by Luther and as taught in the Confessions, the in- 
dividual congregation is the unit of authority and power, 
and for its organization or for the organization of a body 
of congregations no divinely ordained or established form 
is recognized. The Lutheran Principle is that any form of 
organization which is successfully employed, and is not con- 
trary to the Word of God, is proper. At the basis of this 
lies the idea that the Church must have some form of or- 
ganization for the sake of good order and efficiency in the 
promotion of its objects. In this respect the virtual an- 
archy of the Anabaptists was avoided. But the test of any 
form of government or form of organization for the church 
is whether or not the church is realizing the purpose for 
which it was established and, at the same time, is agreeabie 
to the members thereof with respect to the spirit and ideals 
to which their system of political government has accus- 
tomed them.*® Yet it must be clearly understood that this 
view does not allow pure Congregationalism, the absolute 
rule of the majority, to be in effect. For the Lutheran 
Principle also included the idea that all things practiced 
must not be contrary to the Word of God. Such contradic- 
tion being avoided variation and difference may follow, ac- 
cording to the desires of the people and the peculiarity of 
local conditions. 


THE EFFECT UPON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH IN 
AMERICA. 


Because of this accepted view the Lutherans who came to 
America came free to establish their church under more au- 
spicious circumstances than Lutherans had ever enjoyed. 
The freedom of the congregation, and its right to choice, 
while theoretically held in Germany, was practically denied. 
There the secular ruler was the controlling factor. Into 


69 “Lutheranism by its plasticity in externals is inclined in 
strong monarchies to run into Episcopalianism; in aristocracies into 
Presbyterianism; and in republics into Congregationalism,” Lu- 
theran Cyclopedia, “Church Polity,” 106. 


30 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


the American colonies the pioneers of Lutheranism came 
and upon them was laid the responsibility, and the privilege, 
of the formation of principles and practices for a church 
in a land of vastly different political ideals. They could 
not have transferred to their new world the church as they 
had known it in Europe had they wished; they certainly 
could not have transferred it from Germany.” It seems 
therefore safe to say that nowhere has the Lutheran Church 
had the opportunity to shape its church polity in accordance 
with its principles as it has had in America."! 

How the Lutheran Church in America realized its oppor- 
tunity, as this is illustrated in its development, it will be 
the further purpose to inquire into. 


70 Mann, life and Times of Henry Melchoir Muehlenberg, 89. 
71 Jacobs, op. cit., 14; Richard, op. cit., 32, 4; Krauth, The Con- 
bee, Reformation and its Theology, 159-60; Schmucker, op. cit., 


of the Lutheran Church in America 31 


CHAPTER II. 
BEGINNINGS IN AMERICA TO 1781. 


BEGINNINGS OF CONGREGATIONAL ORGANIZATION. 


In the colonization of North America representatives of 
the Lutheran Church were early found among the popu- 
lation. This was true, however, for the great part of the 
17th century only in so far as the Dutch and Swedish Col- 
onists were concerned. The first mention of Lutherans 
in New Netherland is that made by the Jesuit missionary, 
Jogues, in 1643. These were Dutch and there is reason to 
believe that there was soon a considerable number of them 
among the population... But no church organization was 
permitted to be formed by these people until after the con- 
quest of the Colony by the English. A Lutheran minister 
had been brought in in 1657 but he had been deported by 
the Dutch authorities at the instance of the Reformed min- 
isters.2 After many vicissitudes the remnants of Dutch 
Lutheranism were united with the German Lutheran 
Churches in New York in the late eighteenth century. 

In 1638 Lutherans arrived as the representatives of the 
Swedish colonization on the Delaware. The next year the 
Rev. Reorus Torkillus came and a regular church organ- 
ization, under the National Church of Sweden, was begun.’ 
Even though the Swedish colonial project failed the Church 
of Sweden continued to regard the several churches es- 
tablished as missionary points and supplied the ministry 
even until after the Revolutionary War. Then a number 
of the churches were without pastors and since the younger 
element called for English service, and as no Lutheran min- 


1 Wentz, The Lutheran Church in American History, 26, 7; Jacobs, 
A History of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States, 
46. 


2 Wentz, op. cit., 27-31. For the relations between the two 
Churches in Holland, see above. 
3 Wentz, op. cit., 34-40. 


32 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


isters could be had, the churches amended their constitu- 
tions to permit the employment of Episcopalian ministers. 
The complete transition to the Protestant Episcopal 
Church was not long in coming. The Swedish Lutheran 
Churches were never independent, self-supporting churches, 
but they depended upon the aid and direction given 
from the National Swedish Church. Consequently noth- 
ing of importance to the subject here was developed, and 
no further attention will be given to their history.* 

William Penn’s ‘‘Holy Experiment” opened to oppressed 
South Germans a place of refuge from the depredations 
of the French. In 1694 an erratic preacher, Heinrich 
Bernhard Koester, gathered together some German Luth- 
erans in Germantown and conducted for them the first 
German Lutheran church service in America.’ The tide 
of German immigration had now set in and by 1703 Ger- 
man Lutheran Congregations had been established in 
Pennsylvania. This tide also flowed, in the early decades 
of the eighteenth century, to the Province of New York 
and in 1709 Rev. Joshua Kocherthal and a congregation 
of Lutherans settled on the west bank of the Hudson at 
Newburgh. These were the “Palatines,” fleeing from the 
persecution and disaster above referred to.° 

From this time to the Revolution the number of Ger- 
man immigrants to the colonies increased. Lutheran con- 
gregations were organized wherever a considerable body 
of Germans went. This element soon became the chief 
factor in the strength of the Lutheran Church in America. 
Congregations were organized in Pennsylvania, New Jer- 


4 An excellent treatment of the history of the Swedish Churches 
within the limits of the expansion of the original settlements is to be 
found in Clay, Annals of the Swedes. A strong Swedish-American 
Lutheran Church has since grown up but it had, in its beginnings, no 
connection with these early settlements, being solely the fruit of the 
great Scandinavian immigration which began about the middle of the 
last century. The present Swedish Lutheran group is organized into 
the “Augustana” Synod, a general body founded in 1860. 

5 Wentz, op. cit., 45, 6; Schmauk, A History of the Lutheran 
Church in Pennsylvania, Chapter 4. 

6 Wentz, op. cit., 31-2. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 33 


sey, New York, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Geor- 
gia, and North Carolina. There was, however, no progress 
made for many years toward efficient congregational or- 
ganization and administration nor toward a general inter- 
congregational organization. Transplanted to a different 
political system these Germans were confronted with the 
necessity of working out a new form of church organiza- 
tion. This they were not immediately able to do. With- 
out over-sight and a strong organization, the congrega- 
tions easily fell prey to men who offered themselves as 
pastors. While a few of these proved to be worthy, some 
were ministerial vagabonds, others were deposed minis- 
ters from the Continent, and others were mere impostors 
who had never been properly received into the ministry. 
Then too the Moravians became active and sought to im- 
pose upon them, while many congregations were entirely 
without the services of a pastor of any kind.’ 


THE UNITED CONGREGATIONS, AND THE PART OF MUEHLEN- 
BERG. 


A first step in improving conditions came in 1733 when 
the Rev. John Christian Schultz united three of the older 
German congregations—those at Philadelphia, New Provi- 
dence, and New Hanover—into one parish and suggested 
sending two laymen and himself to Germany to secure more 
qualified and worthy ministers and teachers, and to solicit 
funds for church and school buildings. Schultz never re- 
turned from this mission but it was by no means fruitless, 
for the German Lutheran cause in America was thus 
brought to the attention of Rev. Ziegenhagen, the Han- 
overian Court-Preacher in London, and the Rev. Prof. 
Francke of the Halle Institutions.2 After several years’ 


7 The evidences of the above-mentioned condition are numerous 
and conclusive. See Jacobs, op. cit., Chapters 11 & 12; also the 
“Hallesche Nachrichten,” translated by Schaeffer, 75-105. 

8 All this is given in detail in the “Hallesche Nachrichten,” as 
cited above. 


34 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


delay these men secured and commissioned the Rev. Henry 
Muehlenberg who arrived in 1742 to serve the ‘United 
Congregations,” at Philadelphia, Providence, and New 
Hanover. With the coming of Muehlenberg the first suc- 
cessful step toward the organization of the Lutheran 
Church in America may be said to have been taken. 


The parochial period in the life of the Church, like the Colonial 
period in the life of the State, was about to pass and the organic 
unity of the parishes into the larger Church was about to parallel the 
federal union of the colonies into the American Republic. 


When Muehlenberg arrived he at once assumed the pas- 
torate of the congregations to which he had been specif- 
ically called. Conflicts with a Pastor Kraft who had been 
serving the Philadelphia church, and with the Moravians, 
especially with Count Zinzendorf who claimed to be in- 
spector of all the Lutheran congregations in Pennsylvania, 
occasioned difficulty which was soon overcome.’® But 
Muehlenberg had no intention, and indeed no justification 
according to his Call, of confining his energies to a single 
parish. He had been sent by the officials at London and 
Halle as a missionary to the German Lutherans in Amer- 
ica, Wherever they might be found, and was under their 
authority, having their support. This authority they had 
not gratuitously assumed but it had been received by vir- 
tue of the appeals from the congregations and their ac- 
ecompanying delegation of authority. Accordingly he set 
about his work with zeal. He visited the various congre- 
gations; he sought to bring order out of veritable chaos 
in congregational organization and practice, and he looked 
forward to the time when there should be an effective or- 
ganization of all the Lutheran Churches of German ex- 
traction for the better control of such matters as minis- 
terial supply, the exercise of discipline, etc.1% Too much 


9 Wentz, op. cit., 53. 

10 Mann, Life and Times of H. M. Muehlenberg, 109-27. 

11 For a statement of Muehlenberg’s work and ideals in this re- 
spect see Appendix I, to the Minutes of the 145th Annual Convention 
of the Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium of Pennsylvania and Ad- 
jacent States—1892—; 12-15. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 35 


importance can hardly be attached to this man nor to the 
work which he accomplished. His motto, Ecclesia plan- 
tanda, is both expressive and prophetic. 

Inasmuch as the special interest here is in the develop- 
ment of a particular phase of church polity, namely, the 
synodical, it is not necessary to enter upon a detailed study 
of the development of congregational polity in the Luth- 
eran Church in America, as this is illustrated in congre- 
gational constitutions. It is enough if certain conclusions 
are noted.?? 


CONCLUSIONS AS TO CONGREGATIONAL ORGANIZATION. 


In all the German congregations in Pennsylvania, however, an 
organization was found when Muehlenberg came, which had arisen 
out of the necessities of the case, and in all of them it had the same 
character.13 


No written constitutions for the congregations in 
Pennsylvania, drawn up prior to the arrival of Muehlen- 
berg, are known to exist. The Salzburgers, however, 
who came to Georgia were furnished with a constitu- 
tion drawn up by Drs. Urlsperger, Ziegenhagen, and 
Francke, and based on the constitution of the Savoy Church 
in London. But since this Salzburger Constitution does 
not appear to have exerted any considerable influence at- 
tention will rather be given to the development of the con- 
gregational constitution as this was illustrated in Peni- 
sylvania. 

Taking the basis of organization as he found it when he 
arrived, Muehlenberge immediately became active in giv- 
ing the organization a form. 25 November, 1742, he ar- 
rived in Philadelphia; 26 November he opened the record 


12 This whole matter is excellently worked out in B. M. 
Schmucker’s “The Organization of the Congregation in the Early Lu- 
Bate Churches in America,” in The Lutheran Church Review, 6:188- 

6. 

13 I[bid., 189. 


36 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


book of the church at New Hanover with the following 
statement, 


I, Henry Melchoir Muehlenberg, arrived at New Hanover, as 
preacher of the Gospel and the Augsburg Confession. On Nov. 27 I 
laid before the elders and deacons my instructions and vocation, which 
I had brought with me from the Right Reverend, the court preacher 
Ziegenhagen, in London. On the 28th delivered my introductory ser- 
mon in the church at this place. After the sermon I read my in- 
structions to the congregation also.14 


Shortly after he wrote what has sometimes been called a 
constitution for the church at New Hanover, but it seems 
that such a designation is not accurately given. This was 
the first of a number of more or less imperfect and brief 
papers which he wrote for various congregations at var- 
ious times for their guidance, and in anticipation of full 
and formal constitutions which he hoped to prepare for 
them later.*® 

The full and formal constitution which was thus prom- 
ised was written after twenty years’ experience, and after 
careful study. It was expressly prepared for the St. Mich- 
ael’s congregation in Philadelphia and was accepted by it 
sbih TY Pey 

The question may well arise in this connection as to 
where Muehlenberg got his ideas in evidence in this docu- 
ment. How much was original with him and how much 
was from other sources? Doubtless his long and varied 
experience both in Germany and America had much to do 
with his choice of provisions and regulations but that he 
was indebted to other sources for valuable suggestions 
and fundamental and guiding principles is without ques- 
tion. His work was rather that of adaptation than of 


14 Schmauk, op. cit., 157; facsimile of the original, 156. 

15 Ibid., 157. 

16 Muehlenberg had prepared several constitutions which were 
of really high order but the fact still remains that that of 1762 is 
regarded as the first full and formal constitution and so is entitled to 
first place. See Schmucker, op. cit., 211 ff. The Constitution of 1762 
is printed in full in “Hallesche Nachrichten,” 2:435-41. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 37 


creative formulation. He was, of course, indebted to the 
principles of Lutheran polity as these have already been 
outlined.17 However, as has been seen, these principles 
had in large measure been disregarded, especially in Ger- 
many. It is to be noted next that while he found no def- 
inite and formal organization in the Lutheran congrega- 
tions of German origin and descent in Pennsylvania, he 
was influenced in his choice of provisions by congregations 
of Lutherans of other origins and Christians of other de- 
nominations. These were:'® (1) The Swedish Lutheran 
Congregations in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jer- 
sey; (2) The Lutheran Congregations of Dutch descent 
in New York; (8) The Lutheran Congregations of Ger- 
man descent in New York, New Jersey, and Georgia; (4) 
The German Reformed Churches in New York, New Jer- 
sey, and Pennsylvania. To these may be added a possible 
influence from the Presbyterian Churches in Pennsylvania. 
As yet another instance of personal contact with the work- 
ings of constitutional provisions for congregations may be 
‘mentioned that which Schmucker emphasizes,!® namely, 
the provisions with which Muehlenberg was himself ac- 
quainted at Halle, by which the congregation was governed 
even as the Reformed and so with much more self-deter- 
mination than the other Lutheran congregations enjoyed.” 

Back of all these local influences stood certain more im- 
portant ones. These were the influences exerted by the 
Constitutions of the Lutheran Congregations in Amster- 
dam and London. And yet back of even these stood the 
monumental Ordonnances Ecclesiastiques de Geneve.”' 

All of the foregoing will serve to show that Muehlenberg 
was concerned to formulate a congregational constitution 
which would increase the efficiency of the congregations and 


17 See Chapter I, above. 

18 Schmucker, ov. cit., 190-205. 

19 Jbid., 210: “Each Congregation shall have its own Elders and 
Vorsteher, who with the Pastors of the place constitute a Presbytery 
or Consistory. There were to be four or six Elders, etc.” 

20 Cf. 26-27, above. 

21 Cf. 16, 7; 21-3; 23, for the Constitutions of Geneva, Amster- 
dam, and London. 


38 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


yet would not violate Lutheran principles of polity. In 
this purpose he was successful. The Constitution of 1762 
became a model of similar constitutions throughout the 
country, and its influence persists even to the present. It 
was indeed a “carefully prepared Christian congregational 
constitution, corresponding with the political liberties of 
this country.’’? It was eclectic. The author sought to 
include the best that was shown to be practicable through 
experience, though never contrary to the Word of God. 

The Constitution was divided into three ‘‘Chapters.’’”° 
Chapter I is entitled, “Of the Pastors.” The duties and 
obligations of the Pastors are specified in detail under 
Sections 1-7 and 11. Section 8 lays down regulations for 
the discipline of an offending pastor; Section 9 prescribes 
the method of election, and Section 10 is concerned with 
the salary. Chapter II is entitled, “Of the External Gov- 
ernment of the Congregation.” Section 1 gives to the con- 
gregation the right to elect and confirm, by a majority of 
votes, all officers and ministrants. Section 2 provides for 
a Church Council to consist of the Trustees, six Elders, and 
six Vorsteher, chosen by the congregation. The Trustees 
are the Pastors. After 1791 Council was made to consist 
of Pastors, Elders, and Vorsteher, the Trustees being 
omitted. Section 3 made provisions for certain surviving 
Trustees. This was purely a temporary provision to meet 
a present situation. Section 4 specified the mode of elec- 
tion of Elders which was by nomination by the Council 
and election by the congregation. Section 5 lays down 
that the election of Vorsteher shall be like that of the El- 
ders. Section 6 reiterates that the Church Council is con- 
stituted of Trustees, Elders, and Vorsteher. Section 7 
specifies the procedure in the decision of weighty matters, 
approval by two-thirds of the Church Council after which 
approval by two-thirds of the communicant members of 


22 Mann op. cit., 365. The whole matter is dealt with at length 
by the same author, Chapter 382. 

23 A condensed translation of it is in Schmucker, op. cit., 219-224. 
Conclusions here drawn are based on this translation. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 39 


the congregation, “especially when it demands contribu- 
tions from the members,” being required. Section 8 de- 
tails the duties of the “‘ruling Elders,’’** and Section 9 those 
of the Vorsteher. The distinction between the two offices 
is that the Elders have mainly to do with spiritual inter- 
ests; the Vorsteher with temporal interests, though in both 
cases there are included a few of the interests of the other 
eategory. Section 10 has to do with the procedure in the 
investigation and admonition with respect to offences by 
either Pastors, Elders, Trustees, or Vorsteher. Chapter 
III is entitled, “Of the Members of the Congregation.” 
Section 1 lays down the requirements demanded for full 
membership in the congregation. Section 2 sets forth 
that those who fail in the above-mentioned points are ex- 
cluded from the privileges of the congregation. Section 3 
defines the procedure to be followed against those who err. 

A noticeable feature of this Constitution is the frequent 
references made to the membership of the congregation in 
a “Synod,” and the relation of the pastors to a “Minister- 
ium.” As these references have importance in relation 
to the matter of more particular interest here, attention 
will now be directed to a study of the first efforts toward 
forming an inter-congregational organization, in other 
words, a synodical body. 


EARLIEST ATTEMPTS AT SYNODICAL ORGANIZATION. 


There is a report of an attempt to form a general church 
organization before Muehlenberg’s arrival. Three pas- 
tors, serving congregations in New York and New Jersey 
met at Raritan, 20 August, 1735, in the first synodical 
meeting in America. Nine congregations were represent- 
ed by delegates. There is record of only one convention so 
that the importance of this for the future welfare of the 
church is not great. It can be said, in this connection, that 
the pastors serving these congregations were regularly sent 


24 Here Presbyterian influence can be discerned. 


40 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


from Europe and were thoroughly worthy and reliable. 
But because they came out of a different environment in 
Germany they had nothing to do with Muehlenberg, or in- 
deed with anyone who came out of Halle.” 

As has been shown before there were Swedish Lutheran 
churches along the Delaware, and these continued even 
after Sweden’s interest in colonization ceased. Several of 
these were in the vicinity of Philadelphia and there had 
sprung up cordial relations between them and the German 
Lutheran Churches. These Swedish churches were under 
the pastoral care of ministers of the Church of Sweden who 
had been sent out as missionaries, under the authority and 
direction of the State Church. The Moravians being ac- 
tive in troubling the Lutheran congregations, both German 
and Swedish, it was proposed by two laymen, as a special 
protection against these activities, that there be held yearly 
meetings of both the German and Swedish ministers, to- 
gether with a few “elders” from both parties. Other mat- 
ters besides defence against the Moravians were also to be 
considered at the meeting. Peter Kock, a leading layman 
among the Swedes, and Henry Sleydorn, a German, were 
the two most active in projecting the meeting which was 
held in May, 1744 in Gloria Dei Church just outside of 
Philadelphia. Mr. Kock presented a ‘‘Church Regulation,” 
which was designed to unite forever the Swedish ministers 
with the German and which was adapted to the special cir- 
cumstance of the time. Difficulties over the attitude to- 
ward the Moravians, differences in church usages and in 
language, and diversity in ecclesiastical connection were the 
rocks on which the scheme foundered and nothing was ac- 
complished.2° So the former state of disorganization and 
disunion continued. 


25 Graebner, Geschichte der Lutherischen Kirche in America, 
193-7; Bente, American Lutheranism, 1:33. A sketch of a con- 
stitution, apparently for a synod, has recently been discovered in the 
writings of the Rev. Berkenmeyer, one of the three pastors just re- 
ferred to. Whatsoever the purpose and authenticity of this, it had 
no influence in the development of synodica! polity. 

26 Acrelius, A History of New Sweden, 242-54. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 41 


THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MINISTERIUM OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
1748. 


The first successful effort to form a general organization 
of Lutherans in America must then be set down as of 1748. 
Toward this Muehlenberg, ever since his arrival, had been 
slowly leading. His influence had spread, and congrega- 
tions which had not been parties to London and Halle had 
come to recognize his position and to seek his aid and ad- 
vice.2” In addition to his authority and recognized position, 
Muehlenberg possessed such ability in administration and 
such strength and reliability of character that he won rec- 
ognition and respect from all but a few. 

In addition to looking after congregations which had 
been established before his coming Muehlenberg organized 
or re-established certain congregations which naturally 
looked to him and his principles for advice and assistance.”® 
He was instrumental in having several men sent out under 
much the same authority and direction as himself. These 
served congregations and the congregations thus voluntar- 
ily put themselves under Muehlenberg and his principals 
in Europe.2® The situation as it was in 1748 is thus 
stated :°° 


The United Congregations were at first only the three congrega- 
tions at Philadelphia, New Hanover and Providence, which together 
first applied to the court preacher Ziegenhagen, in London, and to 
Prof. Dr. Francke in Halle, requesting them to choose and call for 
them several able preachers. When the first preacher, Mr. Muehlen- 


27 Jacobs, op. cit., 225-7; Mann, op. cit., Chapters 11, 12, 13; these 
are built on the “Hallesche Nachrichten,’ and on the manuscripts of 
Muehlenberg’s Diary preserved in the Archives of the Ministerium of 
Pennsylvania. Specific citation to the Diary is impractical. Therein 
the investigator finds voluminous evidence for conclusions briefly set 
down. The same is true also in the case of the “Hallesche Nachrich- 
ten.’ 

28 Documentary History of the Evangelical Lutheran Minister- 
aum of Pennsylvania and Adjacent States, 21-23. This will hereafter 
be cited as Doc. Hist. 

29. Mann, op. .cit., 158, 178. 

380° “Doe. Hist., 3. 


42 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


berg, arrived in Pennsylvania, the fourth congregation at German- 
town, united with them, and later Tulpehocken and Lancaster, with 
Nordkiel and Earlingstown as filials of the latter two; so also two 
small congregations at Upper Milford and Saccum joined the two in 
Providence and New Hanover as filials. 


The occasion for the beginning of the organization to 
which Muehlenberg had been looking forward came in con- 
nection with the desire to ordain to the ministry Messrs. J. 
N. Kurtz and Schaum, two catechists who arrived 26 Janu- 
ary, 1745, having been sent from Halle to assist in the work 
among the congregations. The new building for the Phil- 
adelphia church (St. Michael’s) was to be consecrated in 
August, 1748, and it was considered that this would be an 
excellent time to bring together the men serving Lutheran 
congregations in America who followed Muehlenberg.*! 
For these reasons, 


As well as for the closer union of the preachers and of the United 
Congregations, and for mutual consultation and agreement in mat- 
ters concerning all the congregations, a meeting of the preachers, 
elders and deacons of all the frequently mentioned congregations was 
arranged to be held in Philadelphia, August 15 [O. S.], 26 [N. S.], 
1748.32 


In addition to three Halle men—Muehlenberg, Brunn- 
holtz, and Handschuh—and the two catechists also sent 
from Halle, there were present the Swedish Provost,** and 
the Rev. Hartwig. The latter had been called to serve 
churches along the Hudson.** While he was in no direct 
connection with Halle, he was of the same mind as the 
Halle men, and indeed had been ordained for his work in 
London, which fact is evidence that he had the same gen- 
eral ideas, inasmuch as the officials at Halle and at London 


31 Jacobs, op. cit., 239. 

a2 Doc. Hist., 3: 

33 The office of “Provost” corresponded to that of “Superintend- 
ent” in Germany. The Provost acted as the executive administrator 
under the bishops or consistories. In America the Provost was also 
paki of one of the churches while he exercised his office of over- 
sight. 

84 Jacobs, op. cit., 224. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 43 


had been working together in supplying the American 
churches. Of the laity present there were the ‘Delegated 
Elders and Deacons from the United Congregations,” of 
which congregations there were ten listed, while shortness 
of time after notification is given as the reason for absence 
of delegates from an eleventh. Peter Kock and Henry 
Sleydorn are mentioned among those present.*® 

Muehlenberg delivered the opening address and said that 
this union had long been desired but until then it had not 
been effected. He referred to the attempt made at the 
Gloria Dei church in 1744. 


A twisted cord of many threads will not easily break. There must 
be unity among us. Every member has children. The deacons would 
have great responsibility, if they were negligent in helping to create 
good order, especially in behalf of the children, who, if they were 
neglected, would help to condemn their parents. We are here as- 
sembled for this purpose, and, if God will, we shall assemble yearly; 
this is only a trial and test. We preachers who are here present, not 
having wandered hither of our own will, but called and necessitated, 
are bound to give an account to God and our conscience. We stand in 
connection with our Fathers in Europe. We must provide not only. 
for ourselves, but also for our posterity, etc.; etc.°° 


The protocol of the meeting gives a list of five items of 
consideration. First, each congregation was asked on 
what terms it was with its pastor. All reported themselves 
as satisfied. Secondly, the condition of the schools was re- 
ported upon. In Philadelphia, Germantown, New Han- 
over, and Lancaster schools were in fair to flourishing con- 
dition; in the other congregations there were no schools. 
Thirdly, concerning church ceremonies which had been in- 
troduced, all were satisfied, but asked that the public ser- 
ice be made briefer. This they left to the preachers who 
promised to deliberate on the matter. Fourthly, the ques- 
tion why the “so-called” preachers, Stoever, Streiter, An- 
dreae, and Wagner were not invited was raised. In answer 
Muehlenberg 


Bb. Doce Hist.-8 595.12: 
386 Ibid., 9. 


44 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Shows that we can have no fellowship and close brotherhood with 
them, for 1, they decry us as Pietists without reason; 2, they have 
not been sent hither, have neither an inner nor an external call; 3, 
they are not willing to observe the same Church Order that we do; 
each wants to conform to the ceremonies of his home; 4, six years’ 
experience has taught Mr. Muehlenberg that they care for nothing 
but their bread; 5, they are under no Consistorium, and give no ac- 
count of their official doings.*7 


Herein is set forth the chief raison d’etre of the organiza- 
tion then begun. The distinctions made were to serve as 
causes for strife and contentions between pastors and con- 
gregations within the body and pastors and congregations 
without for years to come. But in the maintenance of its 
position the Ministerium contributed the greatest share to 
the establishment of good order and to the advancement of 
the Lutheran Church in America. 

Fifthly, complaint was made that Mr. Wagner had ac- 
cused Muehlenberg of having driven him from Tulpehocken. 
The Church Council of Tulpehocken answered that such 
was not the case. Sixthly, a matter of congregational dis- 
cipline was discussed on the introduction of Mr. Handschuh, 
in behalf of the church at Lancaster. The meeting decided 
against the opinion of the Lancaster congregation which 
agreed to abide by the decision for one year. Here is a 
clear case of synodical authority dictating to a congrega- 
tion on a matter of internal practice. Acquiescence by the 
Lancaster congregation indicates a triumph for synodical 
power. Thus early is the subordination of the congrega- 
tion to the synodical body exemplified. Strict congrega- 
tional polity began to give way to synodical polity.*8 
Finally, at the first session, “the meeting after some delib- 
eration,’ and because “this was only arranged as an at- 
tempt at a closer union and a trial for the future,” decided 
that “our annual Synod shall be held alternately in the two 
cities, Philadelphia and Lancaster. Therefore, if God will, 


37 Ibid., 11; for report of whole proceedings, Ibid. 8-12. 
38 Bente, American Lutheranism, 1:77-82. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 45 


it shall be in Lancaster next year.” It was determined 
that “two elders must come from each congregation at the 
congregation’s expense.’*® In conclusion several addresses 
were made. Provost Sandin expressed a desire to be a 
member and said that the example there set would be a 
good one for the Swedes to follow. What he might have 
done as a member of the Synod it is idle to speculate upon, 
as he died later in that same month. It should be under- 
stood that he had been referring only to his own personai 
membership. It was never intended that the Swedish con- 
gregations should stand in the same relation to the Synod 
as did the German churches. Sandin meant to be an ad- 
visory member, as indeed Hartwig continued to be.*° 

In connection with this first meeting of the Ministerium 
there was adopted the Order of Service—A genda—referred 
to above. (Page 438). There is no existing evidence of its 
being considered at this meeting but the inference is that it 
must have been considered and adopted for official use.*! 
In fulfillment of the occasion for which the meeting was 
called, John Nicholas Kurtz was examined and ordained. 
Catechist Schaum was restrained for another year. Cer- 
tain important points in connection with Kurtz’s ordina- 
tion will be considered below; suffice it to say here that this 
has significance because it was the first synodical ordina- 
tion in the Lutheran Church in America. 

Thus was the Ministerium organized. But what is the 
significance of that? It does not seem to be an exaggera- 
tion to hold with Prof. Graebner, as he says in the words 
which Dr. Jacobs quotes and endorses, that this was ‘“‘the 
most important event in the history of the American Luth- 
eran Church of the eighteenth century.’*? While the or- 
ganization had no formal constitution, and was not to have 
one for many years, its main features may easily be dis- 
cerned. 


39° Doc. Hist., 12. 

40 Mann, op. cit., 214; Jacobs, op. cit., 248. 
41 Doc. Hist., 13-18; Jacobs, op. cit., 267-75. 
AQ Ibid., 243. 


46 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


For describing the relation of the individual minister to 
the Ministerium there is no better source than the “‘Revers” 
signed by John Nicholas Kurtz upon his ordination.** He 
undertakes therein to show proper respect to the pastors 
of the United Congregations to whom he acknowledges him- 
self bound by the call given at Halle in 1744; to regard his 
congregation as only a part of the United Congregations; 
to teach according to the Word of God and the Lutheran 
Confessions; to use only the ceremonies—Agenda—intro- 
duced by the “College of Pastors” of the United Congrega- 
tions and none other; to undertake nothing important with- 
out the advice of the ‘College of Pastors;” to give an ac- 
count of his official acts to the “Reverend College of Pas- 
tors;” to keep a diary and journal of official acts, etc.; and 
not to resist if the body calls him to another field. 


These items, and everything naturally implied therein, I acknowl- 
edge as the conditions of my call, and my obligation thereto. I also 
declare to every one that, if I intentionally act against any one, or 
more, or all of these particulars, I will thereby forfeit all the privi- 
leges to which my call entitles me, and will acknowledge myself, as, 
by such unfaithfulness, deserving due punishment.‘4 


It is very clear from the foregoing that the ideas in the 
minds of the founders of the Ministerium were that the Min- 
isterium should have real power and authority, which it 
would and could exercise, or else it had no reason to be. 

In order to have clearly in mind the position of ministers 
who entered into the Ministerium, it must be remembered 
that the relation to Halle which they sustained was the 
chief ground for co-operation and union. It must also be 
remembered that the acts of the Halle officials in connection 
with ministerial supply and direction in the colonies was 
subject to the approval af the church authorities in Han- 
over, who were the Lutheran representatives of the then 
reigning Hanoverian king of England. It was for this 
reason that the interest and authority of Dr. Ziegenhagen, 


43 Doc. Hist., 20-1. 
44 Ibid. 21. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 47 


Hanoverian court-preacher in London, was active. Of 
course, such relations as the American pastors had with 
these European officials guaranteed a likeness in doctrine 
and practice among them, and common ideals for synodical 
organization were assured. This peculiar relation to Halle 
not only served the ends just mentioned but it also called 
forth, in pursuance of the exercise of control and direction, 
the regular transmission, as a required duty, of reports on 
the part of the ministers, which reports now constitute the 
chief source of present knowledge of this important period 
of the development of the Lutheran Church in America. 
These reports have been, in large measure, published and 
are more popularly known as the “Haillesche Nachrichten.” 
The essential features in the organization of the Minis- 
terium having been noted, attention will now be given to a 
study of its internal development leading up to a setting 
forth in a formal way of the first written constitution. 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINISTERIUM OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
1748-1781. 


In the study of this internal development two natural di- 
visions immediately appear. The first is that between 1748 
and 1754; the second between 1760 and 1781. In the first 
period there were laid down, even from the very organiza- 
tion meeting, certain principles and practices of synodical 
organization which were to persist through to 1781, when 
they were recorded, and even beyond that time to the pres- 
ent day. Of course it is true that they exist at the present 
time in very modified form. 

Ordination was placed from the beginning entirely under 
the control of the ministers subject, at first, to the advice 
and approval of the European officials. All other mat- 
ters were really under control of the pastors. Indeed the 
lay delegates were not members of the synod, or of the 
“United Congregations.” “There was no vote taken in the 
common assembly of pastors and laymen.’* At the be- 


45 Jacobs, op. cit., 244. 


48 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


ginning of the synod they made reports, answered ques- 
tions concerning their congregations and pastors, and were 
often consulted on weightier matters. 

At first there was no elected presiding officer wd for the 
first two sessions (1748 and 1749) Muehlenberg, by virtue 
of his pre-eminence and prior call and commission, assumed 
‘this position. At the third meeting, however, “Pastor 

uehlenberg’s Proposition concerning the necessity of a 
Superintendent over all our Congregations, to be elected 
yearly,” was the first Item of business. No provision was 
made before 1781 for a permanent secretary, and the re- 
ports of the meetings—as sent to Halle—were frequently 
signed by the president. On some occasions mention is 
made of the president’s appointment of some one to take 
the minutes of the meeting.*® 

The new organization had to struggle hard for existence. 
New demands due to the greatly increased German immi- 
gration which was pouring into Pennsylvania at this time 
laid heavy burdens upon the pastors belonging to it. Then, 
other Lutheran ministers who were not in connection with 
the body were hostile to it, either because they had not been 
asked to become members, or because they considered them- 
selves better Lutherans than the “Hallenses’” whom they 
decried as un-Lutheran because of alleged ‘‘Pietism.’’4” 

During this time, nevertheless, the synod grew in the 
number of pastors and congregations connected with it. 
Whereas in 1748 there were present only three regular pas- 
tors, two ministers who were only advisory members, and 
two catechists, one of whom was to be ordained at that 
convention, and delegates from ten congregations, in 1752 
there were present ‘12 preachers” and 68 “delegated elders 
and deacons of our congregations.’*8 No record of any 
consequence is preserved of the convention of 1753, but in 
1754 the report says that there were in attendance “the 
Swedish Provost, one Swedish preacher, and 14 High Ger- 


46 Doc. Hist., 62, 70. 
47 Bente, op. ‘cit., 304, 5; 73-77; Doc. Hist., 40. 
48 Ibid., 38. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 49 


man ministers.’*® At this convention the discouraging 
conditions referred to above were recognized and the weight 
of them laid heavily upon the hearts of those assembled. 
Of this Muehlenberg writes,*° 


After they had reported, and mutually lamented the great hin- 
drances each had encountered in his office, and had considered how 
what has heretofore retarded the progress of our Lord’s Kingdom may 
be removed, and devised means to aid, by God’s help, the congrega- 
tions and the numerous ignorant young people within them, they 
gave one another their solemn pledge that they would earnestly ask 
their Heavenly Father for mercy and deliverance. They also promised 
each one, on his part and in his circumstances to fulfill his office with 
all fidelity, according to the grace given him, and, by pure doctrine 
and a godly life, to destroy the Kingdom of Satan, and promote the 
progress of the Kingdom of God. It was also considered most neces- 
sary to lay before our most worthy Fathers and our friends in Eu- 
rope the condition of our affairs, just as they are, and to this end to 
write to you. 


Yet it should be noted that amidst all this lamenting, dele- 
gates were present not only from Pennsylvania, but also 
from New York, New Jersey and Maryland. It is said that 
the business was transacted “in such a child-like, simple, 
edifying manner, and without the least imperiousness and 
ambitious strife’? as to astonish an invited guest, Jacob 
Schertlin, formerly a pastor in Wurtemberg.*' 

The statement of the conditions of affairs which the con- 
vention had ordered to be sent to the Fathers in Halle and 
friends in Europe was written and signed by Muehlenberg, 
Brunnholtz, and Handschuh, the three original members of 
the “College of Pastors,” and the three oldest in point of 
ministerial service. It gives a brief history of the German 
immigration to Pennsylvania and details the condition of 
each congregation which they claim to be responsible for. 
It is an important document.” 


AQ Ibid., 42. 

50 Ibid., “Hallesche Nachrichten,” I1:198. 

ol Mann, op. cit., 311; Doc. Hist., 438. 

52 Ibid., 42; “Hallesche Nachrichten,” 11:193-209 (in full); 
Jacobs, op. cit., 246-8 (summary). 


50 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


The description given is indeed a sad one. The fate of 
organized Lutheranism in America hung in the balance. 
Here the first division of the development of the Minister- 
ium, as accepted, may be said to end. No synodical meet- 
ings were held 1755-59.°* Had the Ministerium ceased to 
exist ? 

The records which are preserved and which deal with the 
events of 1760 which led to the resuscitation of the Minis- 
terium might, from one point of view, be interpreted to 
show that a wholly new organization was then begun. The 
common interpretation, however, is that such was not the 
case, and that interpretation is adopted here. It is true 
that Muehlenberg in calling a meeting to be held at his 
church at Providence invited men who had not been mem- 
bers of the “College of Pastors” of the United Congrega- 
tions. Moreover in writing to one of them, Gerock of Lan- 
caster, he says that he is “taking the liberty” of calling a 
“fraternal Pastoral Conference” for the purpose of con- 
sidering the welfare of “our poor ecclesia plantanda in the 
American wilderness.” The manner of conducting the 
Conference was to be determined by those present. He 
goes on to say that the advantages of such a Conference are 
manifold, and while the people of the churches had evidently 
objected to conferences—(Such as the former United Con- 
geregations conventions had been?)—it is to be hoped that 
“we poor preachers may at least have such freedom in our 
congregations as to be able now and then to meet, to tell 
one another our troubles, etc.” And, “the congregations 
can have less objection to this if for this time we ask no 
delegates, but only hold a preacher’s Conference.” How- 
ever, “every well-disposed member” was to be at liberty to 
come and be a spectator and a listener and to partake ‘“‘of 
our humble hospitality.’’*+ 

A factor in the calling of this Conference was the Swedish 
Provost, Charles Magnus Wrangel, who came to take charge 


538 Doc. Hist., 48. 
54 Ibid., 44, 5. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 51 


of the Swedish churches in 1759. With him Muehlenberg 
cultivated a close intimacy. 24 August, 1760, he went to 
Muhlenberg’s home personally to invite him to a meeting 
of the Swedish pastors. Muehlenberg attended this confer- 
ence 14 September and was deeply impressed with what he 
heard there. The instructions from Sweden explicity or- 
dered that the Swedish pastors live in harmony with the 
German pastors and attend their annual meetings. There 
seems to be no question but that the acquaintance with 
Wrangel and the attendance upon the Swedish Conference 
stimulated and encouraged Muehlenberg to revive the Min- 
isterium, for immediately upon his return home he gave the 
eall for the ‘fraternal pastoral conference,” already re- 
ferred to. This was to meet 19 & 20 October.®® 

When the Conference opened there were present: Wran- 
gel, six regular German pastors, two “adjuncts,” a cate- 
chist, and Mr. Bryzelius who earlier in the morning had re- 
nounced the teachings of the Moravians and had been then 
received into the “honorable Evangelical Lutheran Minis- 
terium of Swedish and High German Nationality in Penn- 
sylvania.” Eight laymen are mentioned as in attendance. 
Another German pastor, J. C. Stoever, was present but 
without invitation. He was promised admission later if he 
conducted himself properly.*® 

The purpose of the Conference to deliberate concerning 
future procedure was carried out and eight questions were 
brought forth for consideration and decision. Of these only 
four are in point here. Question 1 concerned the necessity 
for and advantage of holding an annual meeting. A de- 
cision in favor of holding the meetings was arrived at. 
Question 2 concerned the impediments which make dif- 
ficult a fraternal meeting or union, or hinder it altogether. 
The answer was that Satan and his servants were respon- 
sible and false reports about the preachers sent from Halle 
were being circulated. Question 3 concerned the place of 
annual meetings. Annual (?) change of location was con- 


55 Jacobs, op. cit., 255, 6, 8; Mann, op. cit., 342. 
56 Jacobs, op. cit., 260; Doc. Hist., 45-57. 


52 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


sidered necessary and useful. Lancaster was chosen as the 
place of the next meeting. Question 8 concerned the an- 
nual election of a “President of the Ministerium” who should 
be “charged with the duty of visiting all the United Con- 
gregations, and attending the Swedish synodical meetings 
as delegate.” The decision by a unanimous “Yes” is very 
strong proof that this was but a resuscitation of the organ- 
ization of 1748, and that no organic union with the Swedes 
was contemplated. In the evening an election resulted in 
the choice of Muehlenberg for President.*’ 

In May, 1761 “our annual preachers’ Convention of the 
United Swedish and German Ministerium” was held at Lan- 
caster, as decided at the previous meeting, but no record of 
any business transacted is available. 

The next year the meeting was held at Philadelphia and 
the renewed life and vigor of the body is evident from the 
report of the convention. Laymen “as delegates” attended 
in larger numbers and there were four Swedish and ten 
German pastors present. In all, approximately twenty- 
five congregations were represented. Muehlenberg pre- 
sided and appointed Handschuh to act as secretary. Inquiry 
concerning schools in “each of the United Congregations” 
was made and reports of the same were given. For the 
first time since the date of the first organization reports of 
the increase, since the last convention of synod, of the con- 
gregations through Holy Baptism were made. This was 
followed by reports of the number of persons who com- 
muned for the first time in the past year. Several new con- 
gregations were received and the supply of pastors for sev- 
eral of the older congregations provided for. At this point 
the participation of laymen in the proceedings ended, and 
in the same afternoon and on the next day a series of “‘pri- 
vate conference (s) of the preachers” were held in which 
such matters as congregational difficulties, qualifications for 
reception to the ministry, and election of the President were 
cared for. Muehlenberg was again elected President. At 


57 Ibid., 45-57. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 53 


the meetings for considering congregational difficulties dele- 
gates of the congregations concerned were heard.*® 

Beginning with this convention of 1762 and continuing 
indefinitely, although the Swedish ministers continued to 
attend at intervals, the synod took on again the aspect of 
the original organization and became, as it had always been, 
a meeting of pastors for conference and fellowship, and for 
the determination of matters connected with the German 
Lutheran Churches, in which they had the advice and in- 
formation of the laymen. No decisions concerning Swedish 
interests are recorded, and it is safe to assume none were 
made. The Swedish pastors attended only for the minis- 
terial fellowship and comity afforded. The newer idea 
was carried out but it does not appear to have, in any way, 
affected the original purpose, as set forth in 1748. The 
limits of inclusion into the Ministerium were extended and 
pastors and congregations from Pennsylvania, New York, 
New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia were received. “A 
wider Platform than that of Halle is noticeable, scarcely 
half of the ministers having been trained there. The 
movement in 1760 is in all respects more comprehensively 
and better adapted to the American surroundings than that 
of 1749.’%° Yet the influence of Halle remained dominant 
and many churches and ministers of all the colonies just 
mentioned refused to enter into relations with the Minister- 
ium on that account. The support and authority of Halle 
remained even down to the Revolution. 

But the activities of the synod continued and were ex- 
tended. Pastors were ordained, church disputes were 
heard and settled, pastoral relations were begun and ended, 
and the power and prestige of the Ministerium grew. Yet 
opposition to its claims and its overtures continued; many 
resented it and strove to injure it.®° In spite of this there 
grew up a correspondingly greater interest and loyalty 


58 Ibid., 59-67. 
59 Jacobs, op. cit., 260. 
DOME OC Hasta bl 1 ao. 


54 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


among the members and member-congregations. Reports 
of activities were asked for and given. 

The number of pastors and delegates present, or expected 
to be present, grew slowly but surely. The exclusion of 
lay delegates from the actual sessions of the synod when 
matters of real weight were discussed continued, and in 
other ways there was a recognition of a prerogative for the 
clergy.°? It was provided that delegates should be heard 
on matters of business and after their business was done 
they could either remain at the convention or go home.” 

First steps toward a subdivision of the Ministerium into 
districts for purposes of administration and over-sight were 
taken in 1769 when it was resolved that to relieve the Pres- 
ident there should be a Vice-President in each county to care 
for matters so urgent that they could not be postponed until 
the next synodical meeting.** In 1771 Muehlenberg pro- 
posed the holding of quarterly conferences of those pastors 
who lived nearest to one another. These were designed for 
“edification and fraternal encouragement” rather than for 
consideration of the ‘‘external conditions in the congrega- 
tions.” This was approved, and a determination of the 
groupings seems to have been made. It was determined 
also that the minutes of these Conferences should be kept 
and sent to the President of the Ministerium by whom they 
were to be read at the “General Conference.” 

Thus it appears that the experience and progress of the 
years were slowly building up a body of practice and pre- 
cedent that would soon be torn down in an orderly, written 
form. Probably also the spirit of the times when many 
formal declarations and resolutions were being drawn up in 
the political realm contributed in the ecclesiastical realm. 
In any case, it is not surprising to learn that at the synodical 
meeting of 1772 “the need of a better plan for future Syn- 


61 Ibid., 71. 

62 Ibid., 73, 104, 5, 22. 
63 Ibid., 131. 

64 Ibid., 119. 

65 Ibid., 128. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 55 


odical Meetings, and of a code of rules, was also sug- 
gested.’’°> Reporting this later Muehlenberg takes occasion 
to say,* 


Formerly I used only general rules according to the circumstances 
of the time and conditions, and thought, with Jacob (Gen. 33:13, 4), 
‘My Lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and 
herds with young are with me; and if men overdrive them one day, 
all the flock will die.’ However, it is well and right to prepare an 
Order better suited to the circumstances. It were foolish, if a poor 
father were to insist that his children of twenty to thirty years old 
should still wear such clothes as only suit for children three, six, nine 
years old. I requested Pastor Kunze to be so kind as to outline a 
better plan together with suitable rules, in order to accomplish so 
necessary, beneficial and useful an object. 


Kunze had come to America in 1770 and had risen to occupy 
an important place in the church by virtue of his abilities 
and fine education. He was alive to the times and was well 
qualified for such a work. He later became Muehlenberg’s 
son-in-law. 

At the next meeting of the synod no report was made of 
this object, probably because Kunze was busy with the Plan 
and Constitution for the establishment of a German Sem- 
inary and Society in Philadelphia, which document was to 
be read at the convention to the assembled pastors.°* Dur- 
ing the time for the convention of 1774 Muehlenberg was 
absent in the South, so there is no record of the meeting 
which, however, as appears from other sources, was prob- 
ably held.®*® In 1775 the convention was not held “as the 
war disturbances had intervened, when I was consulted by 
our President, Mr. Kurtz, I did not regard it advisable and 
suitable, for reasons satisfactory to me.’ At the conven- 
tion of 1776 neither Muehlenberg nor Kunze was present 
and nothing is reported as to a consideration of a constitu- 


66 Ibid., 137. 

67 Ibid., 137, 8. 

68 Ibid., 141. 

69 Ibid., 148. 

70 Ibid., 149, quoting Muehlenberg. 


56 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


tion.” In May, 1777 the synod met in Philadelphia and 
Muehlenberg’s fear that “the sad conditions caused by the 
war and the difficulty of providing travelling expenses will 
cause a very meagre attendance of preachers” was ful- 
filled.** Consequently but little business was attended tc 
and that of small consequence for the general development 
of the church. 

At New Hanover, however, in October, 1778, there was 
a gratifying attendance. Nineteen preachers and an un- 
enumerated delegation of laymen were present. On Mon- 
day, 5 October, “they went over the Ministerial Constitu- 
tion, reluctantly contracted it and amended it by a major- 
ity vote.”’* On Tuesday, 6 October, ‘‘they finished the Min- 
isterial Constitution” and after transacting other business, 
“they completed the Ministerial Constitution.’’* No men- 
tion is made of the Constitution in the record of the 1779 
eonvention.”” In 1780 no regular meeting was held, but 
six members met at Muehlenberg’s house in New Provi- 
dence and transacted some business relative to ministerial 
supply. Here again no mention is made of the Constitu- 
tion.”® 

With the convention of 1781 the written protocol of the 
“Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America” begins. 
Included in this is the written constitution of that body 
which is the first written constitution for a synodical body 
in America. By action of the synod in 1781” this consti- 
tution was to be signed by all who desired to become mem- 
bers “without any change and at the earlist opportunity.” 
Twenty-five signed it, five places being left blank.7* It is 
an interesting fact that Muehlenberg’s signature, evidently 


Tle svg OU: 

T2C5) bide rl bac 

WS el Odeo 

74 . Ibid. 

Tbe O10 100,81 

76 Ibid., 158, 9. 

77 Ibid., 180. 

78 Facsimile of page of signatures, Doc. Hist., facing page 164; 
see also Jbid., 176. Compare with list, /bid., 167, 8. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 57 


to be put in as No. 1, does not appear. It is fair to as- 
sume, however, that this omission was through an over- 
sight or because of some other equally sufficient reason, and 
not because of any serious disagreement with the pro- 
visions of the document. A short description and running 
commentary of the Constitution will now follow, to show 
that it was but the logical and expected formulation of 
practices and principles long in acceptance. On the basis 
of the evidence above, the authorship of the document may 
be attributed to Kunze. 


THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MINISTERIUM OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
IN FORCE IN 1781. 


Chapter First: “Of the Name and Functions of the Frat- 
ernal Association of Lutheran Ministers in North Amer- 
ica.”*® This sets forth the view consistently held since 
1748 that the body is a “ministerium” and that it is de- 
signed, ideally, to extend throughout North America, and 
to include at least all acceptable German Lutheran Min- 
isters when such are ready to submit to its discipline.*®° 
In this one can see an early expression of the new spirit of 
nationalism in which provincial or state bounds are ig- 
nored, as indeed they had been from the very beginnings 
of the organization. Also, an association of Evangelical 
Lutheran ministers was the intention from the beginning 
as witnessed by the consistent exclusion of lay delegates 
from the determination of all questions concerning rela- 
tions of congregations, the ordination and trial of minis- 
ters, and the location of ministers, although it is true that 
the laymen were frequently consulted on a variety of mat- 
ters. 

Chapter Second: “Of the President of the Synod,” gives 


79 The text here followed is that in the Doc. Hist., 165-75, as 
translated from the original protocol in the Archives of the Minis- 
terium of Pennsylvania. 

80 See Chapter 4: Section 1 (page 167) for expression of hopes 
of great things. 


58 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


to this elected officer “the over-sight, both during the meet- 
ings of Synod and at other times.” In the convention of 
1776 Muehlenberg was elected by vote of the preachers 
only,*! and there are indications that this practice contin- 
ued. Whether before 1760 such was the case is not clear 
and the common report of the transaction in that period is 
that of the transaction of the “United Preachers and dele- 
gates,’’°? among which was the election of a President. 
By the provisions of this chapter the President exercises 
the functions of a presiding officer according to the com- 
mon parliamentary practice. But in all official acts he is 
subject to the direction of the Synod. Whatever oversight 
the President exercises “at other times” than during the 
convention is implied, rather than specified, by virtue of 
his representing the body over which he presides. 

Chapter Third: “Of the Secretary of Synod.” The usual 
functions of this office are to be carried out, but speci- 
fication is made that care be taken “that the fittest and 
most learned persons are put into this office since many 
documents which they have to prepare will be regarded as 
the work of the entire Synod, and, therefore, require thor- 
oughly capable persons to frame them.” 

Chapter Fourth: “Of Reception into the Ministerium.” 
In this it is stated that those who have signed the Consti- 
tution and the “Agreement” required are members of the 
Ministerium. Regulation for the ordination and reception 
of ministers is specified and a lengthy “Agreement” is in- 
cluded which every one is required to sign, as just stated 
above. In this “Agreement” occurs a stringent promise 
that so long as the signator serves any congregation in 
North America he will not declare himself independent of 
the Ministerium. The whole agreement when compared 
with the “Revers” signed by John Nicholas Kurtz in 1748 
shows a clear resemblance.** It is proof that in the gen- 
eral relations—of course aside from references to a Con- 

81 Doc. Hist., 57. 


82 Ibid., 30, 34, 38. 
83 Ibid., 20-1. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 59 


stitution and other matters of later growth which could not 
be thought of in 1748—the same principles of the rela- 
tions between ministers and the ministerium continued. 

To guard against entrance into the body of those from 
Europe who might or might not be worthy, the same pro- 
tection in this respect is taken in Sec. 5 as had been de- 
cided upon in 1749.°* Also to guard against unfair objec- 
tion to membership for personal reasons it was provided 
(Sec. 6: clause 5) that only “well-founded reasons” and 
urgency of conscience should be considered valid ground 
for opposition. The whole relation of minister to minis- 
terium may be said, in conclusion, to have been one of sub- 
ordination, accommodation and respect of the former to 
the latter. The individual gave up, voluntarily of course, a 
certain liberty and freedom of action, in exchange for the 
protection, prestige and utility of the body. 

Chapter Fifth: “Of the Meetings of the Synod and the 
Business Transacted Thereat.” Provision is made for an 
annual meeting. This carries out the purpose of 1748° 
which was re-affirmed in 1760.8° So far as circumstances 
permitted this had been adhered to. Attendance upon 
meetings is required or valid excuse is to be made. In this 
respect it can be said that it had been the practice of mem- 
bers to make every effort to be present or to send their ex- 
cuses. Arrangements are made for the entertainment of 
ministers and the keeping of their horses by the ‘‘Pastor 
Loci,” or at the expense of the common Treasury, or by 
contributions. While the providing of entertainment must 
have been the practice earlier, especially in the country, by 
force of circumstances, evidence of such a practice is found 
at the meeting of 1769*? in Philadelphia. But it is also 
stated that at that time delegates of the United Congrega- 
tions had to pay for their own entertainment.®® Provision 


84 I[bid., 26. 
BH.) fbid.,-12. 
86 Ibid., 49. 
87 Ibid., 104. 
88 Ibid., 105. 


60 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


for a common daily dinner to be provided from the common 
Treasury is made for the ministers. Hours of the business 
sessions, and appointment of religious and devotional ex- 
ercises during the convention are specified. A program of 
business is to be prepared by the President, but every min- 
ister may add items. This seems to follow a custom first 
adopted in 1770.*° 

No provision is made for a Treasurer, but a common 
Treasury is mentioned and Sec. 13 refers specifically to 
financial accounts of the President and the Secretary. Be- 
fore this there is no evidence of a treasury or of financial 
operations except in the cases of distributions of funds from 
Halle which Muehlenberg made on several occasions.°*° The 
delegates of the congregations are guaranteed separate 
hearings of matters of complaint which they have to bring 
to the attention of Synod. Throughout the whole history 
of the organization this practice had been followed.*! The 
President is required to submit all letters referring to con- 
gregational matters, and received by him, to the consider- 
ation of Synod. 

The delegates are heard in inverse order of the proximity 
of their homes to the place of the meeting of Synod. This 
can have but one meaning, namely, that they may lose as 
little time possible in getting home. Consequently, if this 
be the correct assumption, lay delegates have no voice nor 
vote in the meetings, and while their presence is allowed, 
it is not required nor urged. This is in accord with the 
practice from the beginning, certainly after 1760, as many 
instances in the minutes show.° 

Provision of details for conducting the sessions, for li- 
censure and ordination are further made in Chapter 5th, as 
well as for the order for the subject of investigations, pro- 
cess of investigation, and decision in complaints brought 
against ministers. In all these a definite formulation of 


89 Ibid., 121, 180. 
90 IJbid., 146, 155. 
91 Ibid., passim. 
92 Ibid., 131. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 61 


practices, some of them from 1748, is to be seen. After 
the matters of business have been disposed of the ministers 
come together to confer as to the blessings and the difficul- 
ties in their work; to give reports of ministerial acts and 
church membership, and to hear read excuses for absence 
and the diaries of the licensed candidates.** Then follow 
examinations, granting or extension of licenses, or decisions 
on ordinations. In Sec. 31 definite requirements are laid 
down as to place and circumstances of ordination. The 
election of the President and the Secretary and the fixing 
of the time and place of the next meeting are the items re- 
served for the close of the meeting. As the inference is 
that the delegates may have left, the conclusion is that they 
have no vote in these matters. 

Chapter Sixth: “Of the Conduct of Ministers in their 
Official and Other Relations.” Ministerial comity is de- 
fined, also ministerial character. Every minister must en- 
deavor to introduce into the congregation which he is serv- 
ing a constitution like that used generally, and such must 
not conflict in any point with the Constitution of the Min- 
isterium. The doctrinal prescription for ministers is laid 
down and the promise to use the Liturgy already introduced 
is made.** Licensed candidates are required to keep a diary 
which is to be handed over at each meeting of the Synod. 


CONCLUSIONS. 


Thus is briefly described the first written Constitution 
of the first Lutheran Synod in America. Officially and 
practically this Synod was a ‘‘Ministerium.” But every 
meeting was also declared to be “A Synodical Meeting.” 
It was the first step in synodical organization in a land 
under a political and social system different from any un- 
der which the Lutheran Church had ever had synodical 
bodies. The organization was indeed a “Ministerium’— 


Moee DIG wee be O3 84 Te 
94 Ibid., 21. 
95 Ibid., 165. 


62 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


an association of ministers, but these were active and qual- 
ified only by virtue of their being pastors of congregations. 
Therefore the congregations were drawn together and put 
into at least a quasi-synodical relation. 

There is no reason to believe, and no evidence to show, 
that the pastors intended that this lack of lay participation 
in important matters should continue indefinitely. On the 
contrary, the development of the congregational constitu- 
tion through the work of Muehlenberg for St. Michael’s 
Church, Philadelphia, (this is doubtless the constitution re- 
ferred to in Chapter Sixth as the model) showed a very 
definite movement toward lay participation. 

How and why the Constitution in force in 1781 came to 
be revised and superseded by the Constitution of 1792 are 
questions which will be considered in the next chapter. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 63 


CHAPTER III. 


A PERIOD OF DISTRICT SYNODICAL ORGANIZA- 
TION, RE-ORGANIZATION, AND DEVELOP- 
MENT, 1781-1829. 


At the conclusion of the last chapter it was proposed to 
answer the questions, “How” and “Why,” the Constitution 
of 1781 of the Ministerium of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church of North America came to be superseded by the 
Constitution of 1792. An effort to answer these questions 
is now in order. In the study that follows attention will 
not be confined to the development of the polity of that body, 
for even before the revision of its first written constitution 
was accomplished another synodical body was organized. 
Shortly after, movements for synodical organizations in 
other quarters began, and by 1829 nine synods had been 
organized.! Each of these bore the name of a state—in one 
instance, two states—but each showed a purpose to care 
for neglected areas, and even to extend beyond the limits of 
the designated state by adding the qualifying expression, 
“and Adjacent States.’” 

The political development of the new nation, as well as 
certain practical demands, made necessary changes in eccle- 
siastical organization. In this connection an opinion of 
Dr. H. E. Jacobs is in point.? He said, 


The Colonies had to become States, and so the German Lutheran 
Churches had to be gathered into state organizations of American 


1 Synods of Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Ten- 
nessee, Maryland and Virginia, South Carolina, West Pennsylvania, 
and Virginia. This last was organized from churches in Virginia 
who separated from the Synod of Maryland and Virginia in 1829. In 
that same year the remaining churches in Maryland changed the 
name of ae Synod to that of the Synod of Maryland. 

E. “The German Evangelical Congregations in Pennsylvania 
and (cept States,” as in the Constitution of 1792, and “The Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Ministerium of the State of New York and Adjacent 
States and Countries,” as in the revision of 1816. 

38 Interview, July 11, 1925. 


64 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Lutheran Churches (Synods,) just as the Church of England had to 
be supplanted in America by the Protestant Episcopal Church, with 
the congregations organized into dioceses by States. 


Aside from the suggestion hereby made as to the units of 
organization, which is of first consideration here, notice 
ought to be taken of the intention of Dr. Jacobs to stress the 
necessity of so organizing and directing churches of imme- 
diate foreign origin as to make them truly American in form 
and practice. The period the study of which is entered 
upon at this point, may also be understood to have been one 
of Americanization in large sections of the Lutheran 
Church in America, ag well as one of organization into dis- 
trict synodical bodies. 

Adopting the arbitrary method of studying the course of 
development of each district synod to the designed end of 
this period, the development of the Ministerium of New 
York will be the first concern. 


BEGINNINGS OF THE MINISTERIUM OF NEW YORK. 


The first steps toward a definite organization of the Lu- 
theran Church in New York State appears to have been by 
Frederick A. C. Muehlenberg who was pastor in New York 
City, 1773-6.4 A meeting was in all likelihood held in 
April, 1775.5 Nothing is known to have come of this, how- 
ever, and a very satisfactory reason may be found in the 
forced withdrawal from the city on the part of Muehlenberg 
due to his ardent patriotic convictions.® By the time for a 
meeting in 1776 the War of the Revolution was on in earnest 
and in the summer of that year Washington was fighting to 


4 Nicum, Geschichte des Evangelische-Lutherischen Ministeriums 
vom Staate New York und angrenzenden Staaten und Laendern., 47: 
“Hymn and Prayer-Book,” collected by J. C. Kunze, Appendix, 148. 
Nicum, /bid., “Hr. Dr. Mann schreibt uns: ‘Die erste Andeutung eines 
zu bildenden New York Ministeriums fand ich in einem Schreiben Fr. 
A C. Muehlenbergs an seinen Vater, als derselbe im Herbst 1774 sich 
gerade in Charleston, S. C., befand.’ ” 

5 Nicum, op. cit., 47. 

6 Jacobs, op. cit., 300. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 65 


maintain his position on Manhattan Island. This position 
was lost and the British occupied the city of New York. 
For several years thereafter, moreover, conditions were un- 
favorable for a resumption of normal activities as a result 
not only of the peculiar conditions around New York City 
due to British occupation of the city, but also of the general 
conditions due to the War. It is easily to be understood, 
therefore, why the attempt at the organization of the 
Church, likely begun in 1775, came to nothing for the time.’ 

In 1784 John Christopher Kunze, son-in-law of Henry M. 
Muehlenberg, was called to New York as pastor of the 
United Trinity and Christ congregations, both of which had 
suffered severely during the War. The remnants of both 
were united as “The Corporation of the United German 
Lutheran Churches in the City of New York.’’*Kunze came 
from a pastorate in Philadelphia and was a member of the 
Ministerium. He knew the value of a general organization 
of pastors and accordingly in September, 1785, called a 
meeting of the ministers of New York and New Jersey® to 
consider the formation of a Ministerium. Whether this 
meeting was ever actually held is not known.’ 

The Protocol of the Ministerium of New York begins with 
the meeting held at Albany, 23 October, 1786.1" At this 
meeting only three of the total number of Lutheran pastors 
in the State of New York appeared. They were Kunze, 


7 That a meeting was held between 1773-6 seems to be indisput- 
able on the basis of Kunze’s statement. When it was held is not 
pera pianed but Nicum’s statement as to April 1775 should not be 
ignored. 

8 Jacobs, op. cit., 300; Hull, “The Lutheran Church in the Courts,” 
in The Lutheran Church Review, 6:296-324. 

9 Nicum, op. cit., 48. 

10 Jbid., 412, in a review of the Minutes of 1807, notes two refer- 
ences to the point of Kunze’s having served as president of the Minis- 
terium for 22 years. These together with a reference in the Minutes 
of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania for 1786, (Doc. Hist., 210) may 
be interpreted to mean that the meeting of 1785 had indeed been 
held, and that a period of ten years intervened between the meeting 
called by F. A. Muehlenberg and this first of an unbroken series of 
synodical meetings). 

11 Jbid., 48, 401-2, and whole of Chapter 6. 


66 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Moeller, and Schwerdfeger, representing congregations in 
New York, Albany, and Feilstown (New Brunswick). 
These three were all in good standing in the Ministerium of 
Pennsylvania and continued so at least until 17838.” All 
had signed the Constitution of 1781 of the Ministerium of 
Pennsylvania."® But at least eight other regular Lutheran 
pastors within the territory stood aloof. Most of these did 
so by reason of their opposition to Halle and all that it stood 
for.“ Of the more than twenty-five congregations in the 
state only two were represented by lay delegates." How- 
ever, the organization had a mission and so made an appeal. 
“It had not existed ten years before all the congregations 
and right-minded preachers had joined” it.1° In the first 
ten years of its existence, thirteen ministers joined.” 


CONTENTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE FIRST RECORDED MEETING. 


Looking more closely at the protocol of the first meeting 
of the Ministerium'’ at which those who gathered con- 
sidered themselves to be “nur als eine Committee der Evan- 
gelischen Kirche in Neuyork Staat anzusehen,’’’® the follow- 
ing conclusions are seen to have been arrived at: (1) Fu- 
ture meetings were to take place at the call of the Presi- 
dent; (2) Every congregation was to send a lay delegate 
who should have seat and vote—Sitz und Stimme—even as 
the pastors had, except in matters of the examination of 
ministerial candidates and investigation of charges against 
pastors; (8) Pastors not uniting with the body were not to 
be recognized nor accepted by the congregations connected 
with the body; (4) The “Ministerial Order” of the Pennsyl- 
vania Synod was to be followed until changed by vote; (5) 


12 Doc. Hist. 219, 20, 22: 

13 Ibid., 176. 

14 Jacobs, op. cit., 310. 

15 Nicum, op. cit., 48, 52. 

16 Ibid., 53. 

17 Ibid., 54; Jacobs, op. cit., 310, 1. 
18 Nicum, op. cit., 54, 401-2. 

19 Ibid., 401. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 67 


The President was to have the same power as the President 
of the Pennsylvania Synod. To this office Kunze was 
elected. 


THE CONSTITUTION OF 1796. 


Of special interest here is an understanding of the dis- 
tinctive features of the Ministerial Order (Constitution) of 
this second Lutheran Synod in America. As just noted, the 
first Order was that of the Pennsylvania Synod in force in 
1781, with some modifications, notably the provision for the 
meetings of the body at the call of the President. In the 
Pennsylvania Order the provision is for annual meetings, 
regularly to be determined as to time and place by the Min- 
isterium itself.2° Another notable modification is the pro- 
vision for the “‘seat and vote” to lay delegates. By the 
Pennsylvania Order the lay delegates were virtually with- 
out either, and their capacity was wholly advisory. 

When in 1792 the Pennsylvania Synod revised its consti- 
tution—see below for details—the resolution to follow the 
older body was renewed. In keeping with the spirit of the 
resolution the Order of the New York Ministerium was im- 
mediately amended in a few points but in 1794 it was fur- 
ther changed and finally adopted as the ‘Ministerial Order 
of the Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium in the State of 
New York and Adjacent Lands (Countries).’?! This Or- 
der and the Constitution of the Pennsylvania Ministerium 
of 1792 were in part the work of the same hand, for Kunze 
had membership in both bodies and was likely instrumental 
in including the provision that such dual membership was 
permissible.2?, He had played a prominent part in constitu- 
tion-making in Pennsylvania and as a leading member of 
the New York Ministerium must have shown the same in- 
fluence there.”* 


20 Doc. Hist., 170. 

21 Nicum, op. cit., 54-61. 

22 Doc. Hist., 259; Jacobs, op. cit., 311. 

23 See below, pages 70, 1; Doc. Hist., 244. 


68 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINISTERIUM OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
1781-92. 


In order to understand the Constitution of the New York 
Ministerium as adopted in 1794, it will be necessary to di- 
gress at this point and consider the development of the 
Pennsylvania Ministerium from 1781 to 1792, with particu- 
lar emphasis upon the constitution adopted by that body in 
the latter year. 

The written protocol of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania 
begins with the record of the convention of 1781.** Into 
the minute-book then opened the Constitution as it was in 
force in that year was transcribed. At the convention in 
June, 1782, “the Constitution of the Ministerium was again 
read and signed after a few slight changes (cap. 2:14; 4:6; 
5:30).”25 These changes are of no consequence in relation 
to the purpose and interest here. At the same convention 
it was also resolved “to have the Ministerial Order and the 
common Church Agende printed.” 

In connection with the convention of June, 1786, there is 
an interesting resolution?® in reference to the relations be- 
tween the Ministeriums of Pennsylvania and New York. 
It was resolved that if the “United Lutheran Preachers in 
New York State send a copy of the Protocol of their meet- 
ing to the Ministerium, a copy” of the minutes of the latter 
should be sent in return. In view of the fact that the date 
of organization of the Ministerium of New York is com- 
monly accepted as 23 October, 1786, this either means that 
it was in anticipation of what might be done in the future, 
or is evidence that a meeting had indeed been held in 1785, 
at the call of Kunze, or that it was a recognition of the ex- 
istence, though dormant, of an organization in New York 
which would be dated as having been begun by F. A. C. 
Muehlenberg at some time between 1773-6.27 


24 Lbs 117. i. 

25 Ibid., 183. 

26 Ibid., 210. 

27 See above, pages 64, 5. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 69 


At the convention of 1787 “it was unanimously resolved, 
to apply to the authorities for a charter, and Senior Mueh- 
lenberg, Pastor Nicholas Kurtz, Emanuel Schulze, Dr. Hel- 
muth, Preacher H. Muehlenberg, Peter Muehlenberg, Esq.; 
Saris. Rawle, Esq., were named a committee to attend to 
this.’”*5 Nothing appears to have resulted from this ap- 
pointment so in 1788 “‘Synod also considered it necessary to 
petition the government for a charter,” and so, 


it was resolved, that Dr. Kunze, and Dr. Helmuth, Pastor Schmidt 
and Frederick Muehlenberg, Esq., shall be a committee to draw up a 
charter for the Ministerium; circulate their draft, and lay it ‘to- 
gether with the comments received, before the next General Synod.?9 


To this Committee was also entrusted the providing of a 
seal.2° Whether or not this committee designed the model 
of a seal which was accepted in 1791, and which was com- 
mitted to the preachers in Philadelphia for execution, is not 
set forth in the minutes.*! 

Agitation looking toward the reception of laymen as 
members of the Ministerium was first actively carried at 
the convention in May, 1788. On motion of Pastor Voigt 
the matter was referred for examination to the committee 
charged with the preparation of the draft of the charter.** 
That the great political changes of the past dozen years had 
been affecting church life seems evident from the action 


to examine the Ministerial Order by paragraphs, and to make such 
alterations or additions as were considered expedient and suitable to 
our times and needs.?? 


It was an age of constitution-making, of discussion and 
thought upon formal statements of governing principles in 


28 Doc. Hist., 217. 

29 Lbids, aac. 

30 Ibid., 223. 

31 Ibid., 239. The Ministerium of Pennsylvania was not incor- 
porated until 1854, when an Act providing for the same was approved 
by the Governor of Pennsylvania, February 17. See Minutes, 1853: 
14 & 22, and Minutes, 1854; 12 & 59. 

B22 Lace istoeeca, 

383. Lhd. 


70 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


the political realm. A new era had dawned; provisions out 
of harmony with the new spirit in political government were 
questioned. Certain changes, but none of consequence 
here, were immediately made at this session.” 

The matter of the reception of laymen into membership 
in the Ministerium which had been referred to the commit- 
tee charged with the preparation of a draft of a charter 
seems not to have progressed. Evidence of this appears 
from the following: 


A paper from the honorable corporation of St. Michael’s and Zion’s 
in and about Philadelphia was read, in which said corporation stated, 
that in their opinion the general welfare of all the Lutheran congre- 
gations would be advanced, if the delegates of the respective congre- 
gations had a seat and a vote in every meeting of the Ministerium.*® 


A number of resolutions were then passed by which (1) 
each of the “United Congregations” was authorized to send 
one delegate to the next synodical meeting who, under cer- 
tain restrictions, were to attend the deliberations of the 
Ministerium, but such must make provision for their own 
expenses and lodging; (2) Drs. Helmuth and Kunze were to 
draw up a plan in which the above resolutions would be fur- 
ther defined, which plan these two men were to lay before 
the next synodical meeting; and (3) these two men were to 
look over the Ministerial Order and change it as they judged 
necessary, presenting such alterations at the next meeting. 
“The result was th(o) rough revision of the Synodical Con- 
stitution.’’** 

In June, 1792, the delegates from Philadelphia asked the 
approval of the motion made at the last synodical meeting, 
viz: “To receive the delegates of congregations as associ- 
ated members.’’?? 


Hereupon two plans drawn up by Dr. Helmuth and Kunze were 


34 Ibid. 

35 Ibid., 240-1. (Convention of 1791). Helmuth and Schmidt 
were the pastors of these congregations. 

36 Jacobs, op. cit., 311. 

37 Doc. Hist., 244, 


of the Lutheran Church in America rl 


read in the presence of the delegates, stating how in the future dele- 
gates of the United Congregations should attend and vote with the 
preachers. 


After the delegates had withdrawn the plans were compared 
and adjusted, and 


it was decided that regular delegates should have seat and vote in 
the Synodical Meeting, under certain restrictions which are men- 
tioned in the new Ministerial Order.?§ 


During later sessions of the convention of 1792 certain other 
adjustments were made with respect to matters on which 
there were differences of opinion. There is no definite ac- 
tion recorded of the acceptance of the revised constitution 
but inasmuch as it was transcribed in the minute book and 
later referred to as the authoritative basis of the organiza- 
tion it is understood to have been formally accepted and 
effective. 


THE RELIGIOUS ATMOSPHERE IN 1787. 


Before studying this revised constitution and noting its 
contents in comparison with that of 1781, it will be well to 
notice the religious and moral atmosphere in the country 
generally, out of which the revised constitution arose. With 
the death of Muehlenberg in 1787 the prominence of a more 
liberal theological view-point may be observed. This is 
specifically for the Lutherans, but a general opposition to 
authority in morals and religion among those of other 
churches or none is very marked.*® Evangelical faith was 
threatened and those who clung to the old view-point came 
to recognize fellow-spirits in other denominations as well as 
their own and to reach out to them for support. Conse- 
quently there followed a general breaking down of denomi- 
national barriers and the union of Evangelicals of all de- 
nominations for the defense of the faith, and the movement 


38 Ibid. 
39 Bacon, A History of American Christianity, Chapter 14. 


iP The Development of the Synodical Polity 


of attack upon the innovators. The leaders of the Minis- 
terium of Pennsylvania fell in with the movement and the 
confessional position, or better, expression, of the body 
came to be minimized. As a consequence no doctrinal sub- 
scription is included in the Constitution of 1792.*° But 
while the Ministerium of Pennsylvania may seem in its of- 
ficial Order to be indifferent to a Confessionalism, it must 
be noted that its Lutheran consciousness was not stifled nor 
was sound Lutheran doctrine and practice ignored, for ex- 
ample, in the congregational constitutions, etc. On the 
other hand, it can not be denied that official silence on so 
important a matter must have had the effect of weakening 
its whole position in the eyes of the members, pastors and 
congregations. 


A STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1792. 


Looking at the Constitution of 1792 in detail, and com- 
paring it with that of 1781, a number of significant differ- 
ences and also evidences of great advance immediately ap- 
pear. In the “Ministerial Regulations of the German 
Evangelical Lutheran Congregations in Pennsylvania and 
Adjacent States,’’*! in the very title itself certain significant 
changes are to be noted. It is for German congregations 
in Pennsylvamia and Adjacent States. The Ministerium 
thus became restricted in appeal and expression of ambi- 
tion, if not in fact. In 1781 it had a “Constitution of the 
Ministerium of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North 
America.” Why the restriction and limitation? In answer 
may be cited the political organization of states federated 
into a national government, together with the recognition 
of another synodical body, the Ministerium of New York, 
which is recognized as legitimately sharing the field of ac- 


40 Jacobs, op. cit., 309-15. 

41 1792—Doc. Hist., 248-259. 1781—Doc. Hist., 165-175. 

42 The word “German” was not erased from the Ministerium’s 
Constitution until 1892, Jacobs, op. cit., 311. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 73 


tivity. For the designation of “German” congregations the 
reason seems to lie in the fear of English domination within 
the body, which domination was sought to be defeated by 
constitutional provision. Events were to prove that consti- 
tutional provisions could not defeat natural developments 
and not many years afterward the “language question”? was 
to be bitterly fought over.*® Thus may be noted the begin- 
ning of a problem which many years of experience has not 
entirely removed from the Lutheran Church in America. 
In Chapter 1 of each constitution the official name of the 
body is set forth. In that of 1781 the name was “An Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Ministerium in North America”; in 1792 
it was “The German Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium in 
Pennsylvania and Adjacent States.” Thus the adoption 
officially of the designations which are self-explanatory. 
But in this same chapter in the Constitution of 1781 the 
ministers themselves and alone constitute the body; in 1792 
an important change is to be noted in that the convention of 
the ministers is set down as a “Ministerial Meeting,’ and 
the meeting of the ministers “with the delegates of the 
United Congregations,” a “Synodical Meeting.’* Thus the 
petition of the Philadelphia congregations was answered, 
lay representation was granted in the Ministerium, and the 
prevailing democratic tendencies of the new nation appar- 
ently made their impression upon Lutheran synodical ” 
polity.*® But this was only in accord with the already exist- 
ing practice in congregational polity among the Lutherans 


43 Doc. Hist., 353-4, ete. 

44 In the Protestant Churches a characteristic feature of synodi- 
eal organization has been representation of the laity as well as the 
clergy. The synodical system extends back into the early church, 
but it remained for Calvin to introduce lay participation into church 
deliberative bodies. In America lay representation has become a 
fixed feature in synodical organization. For a discussion of this 
whole matter, see A. Hauck, “Councils and Synods,” in The New 
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 3: 279-84. 

45 It is a matter of some importance that F. A. C. Muehlenberg 
and Peter Muehlenberg, both no longer Lutheran clergymen, but both 
important figures in national affairs were members, as laymen, of the 
corporation of St. Michael’s and Zion’s. 


74 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


and was only the logical expression of principles of church 
government laid down in Reformation times. These had, 
however, had little chance to be realized previously, due to 
the absence of democracy in government in Lutheran lands. 

In Chapter II of the Constitution of 1792 a new position 
of dignity and honor was established, namely, that of 
Senior. “The oldest and most meritorious” of the pastors 
was to be elected by the ordained ministers to this position 
which was to be retained for life.*° In Chapter III the pro- 
visions for the Presidency were revised and enlarged but no 
change of significance is to be noted in relation to that of 
1781 other than the necessary one of presiding over the 
“Synodical Meeting,” as well as over the “Ministerial Meet- 
ing.” Chapter IV, “Of the Secretary,” shows no important 
changes. 

Chapter V, “Of the Members of the Ministerium,” pre- 
sents a development into definite form of what had been 
formerly only informal practice. Three ranks of pastors 
are provided for, viz: Ordained ministers, licensed candi- 
dates, and catechists. All three of these ranks had been 
recognized before but now they were formally instituted. A 
reaction against the authority over the “United Congrega- 
tions’ with which Muehlenberg had regarded himself in- 
vested is to be noted in Chapt. V: Art. 1: Sec. 1: 


All ordained ministers are equal in regard to rank or title, except- 
ing the officers spoken of before; they have therefore, in their con- 
gregations, no other superintendents but these officers, and these only 
in so far as this Constitution renders it incumbent upon them, to im- 
part their views and advice to ministers. 


The body elects its officers; these officers are bound by 
* constitutional law. The old authority of the European 
Churches is gone! American principles are established in 
the Lutheran Church in America! 

Chapter VI, “Of the Synodical Meeting,” presents some 


46 The title had been employed before, especially to designate H. 
M. Muehlenberg, but never had been officially provided until 1792. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 15 


signicfiant changes, all of which are bound up with the ad- 
mission of lay delegates to seat and vote. Sec. 2 provides: 
“The regular members of the Synod are the ordained minis- 
ters, the licensed candidates, and the delegates of the United 
Congregations.” Yet while this admission is definitely pro- 
vided for, safe-guards are erected to forestall lay control. 
Section 9 provides that only those delegates from congrega- 
tions served by ordained ministers and licensed candidates 
are entitled to vote. Section 10 requires that there be no 
more voting delegates in the synodical meeting than there 
are ordained ministers and licensed candidates present. By 
Section 138 it is left optional with each congregation whether 
to send a lay delegate or not, but ministers had always to be 
present or present valid excuses. The implication igs that 
the ministers would be as well pleased were there not so 
many lay delegates present. A study of the rolls of the suc- 
ceeding synodical meetings shows that for some years there- 
after lay representation was small. 

Chapter VII, “Of the Ministerial Meeting,” sets forth in 
formal way the provision for a separate and distinct meet- 
ing of the ministers in connection with the Synodical Con- 
vention. In former times such a meeting was held but it 
was informal and more of the nature of a pastoral confer- 
ence than was contemplated in this chapter. Much of the 
business which was to be transacted under the new arrange- 
ment had indeed been transacted in the ““Conference”’ period 
before 1792. The ‘‘Ministerial Meeting” was to take up of- 
ficially matters pertaining to entrance into the ministry, 
trial of ministers, etc., in other words, all matters pertain- 
ing to ministerial rank. 

The Constitution further makes provision for the care of 
the Archives, describes the seal, and establishes special or 
district meetings which later were known as “Conferences.” 
This latter practice had been in vogue for many years. Ad- 
ditional articles were adopted at a subsequent convention 
but these add little of interest here, except that there is a 
recognition of the possibility and right of other Ministeri- 


76 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


ums which, having been recognized as such, shall have ac- 
corded to their delegates a seat and a vote at the annual 
meetings, provided that the courtesy is returned. 


CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF 1792. 


Viewing the Constitution of 1792 in a general way, cer- 
tain conclusions may fairly be arrived at. First, it is a 
well-organized and well-considered document. It is far and 
away beyond that of 1781 in structure and expression. Re- 
printed in 1813 it appears to have continued in force with- 
out any notable changes until 1841. It was the model after 
which most of the synodical constitutions of the early nine- 
teenth century were devised, and indeed was on several oc- 
casions taken as basis of operation for new synods, especi- 
ally those which had gone out from it. Secondly, the demo- 
cratic spirit of the new nation evidently triumphed over 
whatever old-world ideas might have been in mind with re- 
spect to ministerial subjection. There is a clear declara- 
tion of ministerial parity. Thirdly, the same spirit called 
forth the participation of the lay delegates of the several 
congregations in the control of the church. Finally, if there 
is evidence of a backward step, and a disregard of a spirit 
of American nationality in the provision for the emphasis 
upon the German, the framers at least ought not to be criti- 
cised as short-sighted and narrow in their point-of-view in 
restricting the scope of the organization to ‘‘Pennsylvania 
and Adjacent States,” for the distinct organization of com- 
munities into states and territories, as political units, prob- 
ably had its effect. 

Having studied the Constitution of 1792 of the Minister- 
ium of Pennsylvania it will now be in order to return to the 
story of the development of the Ministerium of New York. 
For this preparation has thus been made to understand 
what changes, if any, were carried by this body when it 
drafted a constitution after the Ministerium of Pennsylva- 
nia had adopted that of 1792. 


of the Lutheran Church in America hi 


THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MINISTERIUM OF NEW YORK OF 
1796. 


After the sufficiently full account of the proceedings of 
the synodical meeting of 1786 of the Ministerium of New 
York it is a matter of surprise that the protocol did not 
record an account of the meetings again until 1792. But in 
1792*7 the record begins again. At this convention the 
Ministerial Order of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania was 
accepted with a few changes just then made and the pastors 
were ordered to lay the matter before their congregations 
for final decision. It was agreed that only the parts ac- 
cepted at the next convention should be in force. In 1793 
on account of the absence of President Kunze the considera- 
tion of the constitution was deferred and it was agreed to 
continue to hold to the Ministerial Order of the Ministerium 
of Pennsylvania until a later convention. In 1794** the 
simple statement is made that the Ministerial Order was 
again taken up. No record for 1795 is found, but in 1796 
the statement is made that the completely adopted Minis- 
terial Order was read and that all were to be required to 
subscribe to the same.*® Thus after much deliberation and 
the submission of the document to the consideration of the 
congregations—thus striking a new note in Lutheran polity 
—the Ministerial Order was finally adopted and became 
effective. 


CONTENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MINISTERIUM OF 
NEW YORK OF 1796. 


This “Ministerial Order of the German Evangelical Lu- 
theran Ministerium in the State of New York and Adjoin- 
ing (Adjacent) Countries,” as finally adopted *° differs in 


AT Nicum, op. cit., 403. 
48 Ibid., 404. 
Ibid 


50 Ibid., 55-61. 


78 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


only a few points—but some of these are important ones— 
from that of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania as adopted in 
1792. That this similarity exists is to be expected when it 
is remembered, as was pointed out above,*: that Dr. Kunze 
had a hand in the construction of both. Further, some of 
the other members of the Ministerium of New York still 
held their membership in the Ministerium of Pennsylvania. 
Even if formal membership was not continued, or if there 
had been no other formal relationship, the ideas of the. 
mother-synod would have been sufficiently strong to have 
influenced a daughter-body profoundly. Still further, the 
same general conditions had to be faced, and the same prob- 
lems had to be solved. 

The first difference that is to be noted is that in the Order 
of New York the offices of Senior and President, divided in 
Pennsylvania, are united, and whereas the Senior alone has 
life-tenure by the Pennsylvania Order, this privilege, by the 
New York Order, goes to the individual holding both honors. 
The second notable difference between the Orders is that 
that of New York provides—Chapter IV—for only two 
orders or ranks of ministers, the rank of catechist not being 
recognized as in the Pennsylvania Order. Concerning li- 
censed candidates, no provision seems to have been made in 
the former for allowance of their presence at the Ministerial 
Meeting, although they are required to attend the Synodical 
Meetings. 

Aside from the changes noted above the Constitutions of 
the two bodies are alike in all other essentials, and even the 
exact likeness in expression is to be found in many in- 
stances. The Constitution of the Ministerium of Pennsyl- 
vania is indeed more inclusive but that of New York is suffi- 
ciently so to make it an excellent example of a carefully 
worked out body of regulations whose worth is easily recog- 
nized. It was translated into English and published in 
1803°* with few and unimportant changes. It was adopted 


51 Page 67. 
52 Nicum, op. cit., 61. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 79 


as revised 3 September, 1816, and remained in force beyond 
the period of interest here. 


FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINISTERIUM OF NEW YORK. 


Considering the line of development of the Ministerium 
of New York to 1829 a study of the protocol reveals a slow 
but steady growth.** Questions arose to vex the leaders 
and some of these were large in their consequences. The 
language question was introduced there as in Pennsylvania 
with the same unsatisfactory results. But the greatest 
danger to the strength and well-being of the body was the 
rationalistic theological opinion which came to characterize 
the Synod, although doubtless the body of the people and 
pastors did not incline very far in that direction. 

In 1803, as has been noted, the constitution was trans- 
lated into the English language and printed. After 1807 
the Proceedings of the Synodical Meetings were in English 
until at a very much later date when the German again be- 
came the official medium of expression. After 1807 a new 
spirit came to reign. Kunze had died and his leadership 
fell to Dr. Quitman, a progressive but rationalistic pastor, 
who was anxious to revise the thought and life of the 
church. In 1809 it was resolved that the constitution 
should either be radically changed or else a new one should 
be drawn up. The committee to care for this matter con- 
sisted of the Revs. Quitman, Geissenhainer and Williston. 
There was no convention in 1810, but in 1811 Wackerhagen, 
who, however, was not a member of the committee, pre- 
sented a draft for a new constitution. On account of the 
War there was no convention in 1812. In 18138 it is said 
that Quitman, Geissenhainer and Mayer “are a committee” 
for planning and publishing a new constitution.*> At this 
convention an Eastern and a Western Conference were pro- 


58 Ibid, 404-23. 
54 I[bid., 413. 
55 Ibid., 414. 


80 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


vided for. No ministers appeared for a convention in 1814 
but in 1815 a meeting was held at which the separation into 
two conferences was revoked and Wackerhagen, Quitman 
and Mayer were appointed to draw up a new constitution, 
to be ready at the next synodical meeting. The next year 
the plan for the new Ministerial Order (Constitution) was 
presented, considered, and accepted with a few small 
changes; was signed, and ordered to be printed. It was 
not, as had been the earlier constitution, placed before the 
absent pastors and the congregations for approval. A 
comparison of this paper with that whose place it took is 
now in order. 


A STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1816. 


The Constitution of the Ministerium of New York of 
1816 is an elaborate document, entering into detail as to 
regulations and including many provisions which would or- 
dinarily be found in a set of By-Laws. A number of signi- 
ficant changes are to be found in Chapter I, “Of the Title or 
Name.” Instead of ministers alone forming the associat- 
ing group, “Ministers and Representatives of Evangelical 
Lutheran Churches in the State of New York,” form the 
body which is to be known as “The Evangelical Lutheran 
Ministerium of the State of New York and Adjacent States 
and Countries.” In keeping with the tendency of the time the 
word “German” was dropped from the title and in Chapt. 
IX: Sec. 1 it is specified that all official papers shall be in 
English. It is to be noted that the provision for the dual 
position of Senior and President is abolished,®’ and the 
President of the Ministerium holds office for a term of three 
years, but is eligible for re-election.** He is given the au- 


56 The Constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium of 
the State of New York and Adjacent States and Countries. Revised 
and adopted in General Synod, September 3, A. D. 1816. 

57 But see Hxtracts from the Minutes, 1826, 7 & 8, for evidence of 
the use of “Senior” as an honorary title. 

58 Chapt. II:Sec. 2. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 81 


thority of counsel and admonition®® but has no authority of 
direction or compulsion.*® For the first time in the history 
of the two older synods provision is made for a Treasurer. 
However, by deduction from these provisions, it would ap- 
pear that financial operations were not new in the Minis- 
terium. 

In Chapt. V the parity of the ministers is clearly set torth. 
‘Each is to be regarded as the Bishop of his own church’; ‘all or- 
dained Ministers are perfectly equal as to rank, title and privileges, 
having no power, the one over the other’; ‘they have no overseer in 
the respective congregations.’ 

Synodical authority seems to have declined a great deal 
since the days of Muehlenberg if Chapt. V: Sec. 5 is taken 
as an example: 

‘Each minister has a right to adopt such regulations in his own 

congregation, as circumstances may require,’ etc.: ‘Hach minister has 
a right to leave one church and remove to another,’ but ‘he must give 
the President timely notice of his intended removal.’ 
Doctrinal and confessional requirements appear to have 
passed entirely away since in Sec. 10 provision is made for 
receiving ministers from other denominations without re- 
ordination if the Ministerium is satisfied that any such “is 
a man of piety and unexceptional character, and that he 
possess the literary and other qualifications.” Under 
Chapt. VI, in relation to ‘“‘Candidates for Holy Orders,” the 
examination and evidence required for ordination are of the 
same nature. 

Chapt. VII, “Of Lay-Delegates, or Representatives of 
Congregations in the Synod of the Ministerium,” recognizes 
the independence of separate congregations but at the same 
time also recognizes the need of each of these of mutual 
counsel and assistance. Accordingly, in order that common 
measures for promoting knowledge and religion may be en- 
tered into and that the rights of the congregations may be 


59 Chapt. II: Sec. 10. 
60 Chapt. V: Sec. 1. 
61 Chapt. IV. 


82 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


protected, the churches connected with the Ministerium are 
entitled to representatives in its Synods through delegates. 
However, congregations are to be limited in representation 
by seated and voting delegates to the number of settled pas- 
tors or licensed candidates, but provision is made for the 
reception of commissioners under any circumstances for 
special purposes. Lay delegates must be properly certified 
to have the right to all privileges of the house except the ex- 
amining, licensing, or ordaining of candidates and the ad- 
mission to or exclusion from the ministry, “‘and the discus- 
sion of weighty articles of faith or cares of conscience.” 
Continued representation by congregations in the Minister- 
ium is dependent upon submission to the recommendations 
and resolutions of the body and upon sharing all expenses 
and services designed for the welfare of the associated 
churches and the advancement of the common cause, if such 
congregation has been represented by a delegate in the 
synodical meeting at which time the action in question was 
taken. 

Chapt. VIII, “Of the Synod of the Ministerium,” provides 
for annual meetings in general synod, and special meetings 
by proper call. The Synod is composed of the Ordained 
Ministers, Candidates, and Lay-Delegates. Regular at- 
tendance is demanded of ministers and candidates and ab- 
sence from three consecutive meetings, for which absences 
no apologies are made, constitutes a withdrawal from mem- 
bership. A synod shall be organized if but four ordained 
ministers and four lay-delegates appear at the time ap- 
pointed. After the synodical business is finished a meeting 
of the ordained ministers and candidates shall be called. 
This is the “Ministerium,” or the “Ministerial Meeting.” 
At this all matters upon which the lay delegates are not per- 
mitted to vote are considered; also consultation, discussion, 
and inquiries on matters of common interest are to be 
taken up. 

Under Chapt. IX, “Miscellaneous Articles” are included. 
In this stipulation of the English language, with provision 


of the Lutheran Church in America 83 


for necessary translation into German, is made. Rules for 
the care and consultation of the Archives, and the descrip- 
tion of the seal are laid down. Exchange of commissioners 
or delegates with other Evangelical Lutheran Ministeriums 
in the United States is provided for. Finally, a method of 
amendment is set down. Then follows the form of sub- 
scription. 

This evidence of greater attention to the formal and care- 
ful organization of the Church in New York State was fol- 
lowed in 1817 by a proposition® to secure Articles of Incor- 
poration for the synod such as the Episcopal and Dutch Re- 
formed Churches had. The congregations were asked to 
send in their opinions as to the desirability of such a course. 
At the convention of 1818 it was announced that the ma- 
jority of the congregations were not in favor of incorpora- 
tion.*® So nothing was done. 


FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINISTERIUM OF NEW YORK 
TO 1829. 


At the convention of 1819 the Rev. J. C. Yager was re- 
ceived as Deputy from the Lutheran Synod of Pennsylva- 
nia.** He was present in the interest of a proposed Plan to 
affect a union of all the synods of the Lutheran Church in 
the United States, which Plan was then being sponsored by 
the Synod of Pennsylvania. The New York Ministerium 
appointed a committee to study this “Plan-Entwurf”’ and 
report. The committee after consideration reported that 
the Plan was not to be accepted; and recommended that the 
exchange of delegates between synods, such as their body 
provided for in Chapt. IX: Sec. 4 of its constitution, and the 
appointment of standing synodical committees of corre- 
spondence be the means of future co-operation and relation- 
ship. This report was accepted.®* However, in August, 
1820, it was decided to send two members of the synod to 
attend a meeting when the “plan for the formation of a gen- 


62 Minutes, 1817:4. 

638 Minutes, 1818:2. 

64 Proceedings, 1819:5, 6. 

65 Ibid., 1819:8-12. A fuller study of New York’s attitude to- 
ward a General Synod will be made in a later chapter. 


84 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


eral or central Synod should be discussed.”** This meeting 
was held in Hagerstown, Md., October, 1920. In May, 1821, 
the Constitution proposed for this General Synod was con- 
sidered and it was decided" that the ministers and vestries 
of the congregations of the Synod should transmit their de- 
cisions concerning it to the President of the Synod before 
15 September. At the convention in August, 1822, the 
Secretary stated that but few congregations had sent in their decla- 
rations concerning the General Synod..... and that a majority of the 
few who had expressed an opinion on the subject had deemed the 
proposal inexpedient for the present.®® 

But®® Rev. Lintner gave notice that during the present ses- 
sion he would move for a reconsideration of the vote on the 
subject of a General Synod. At a later session” it was re- 
solved that the President be requested to lay before the next 
Synod a report as to the decisions which he received from 
the different church councils on the subject of the proposed 
union with the General Synod. In the Hxtracts from the 
Minutes, 1823, no mention is made of any such report being 
given so it is fair to conclude that no action of any import- 
ance or weight was taken. In 1826 the Rev. Mr. Lintner 
moved that the Constitution of the General Synod be 
adopted and that the Ministerium unite with that body. 
Previous to this motion the Constitution had been read 
which it had been agreed by the convention adopting the 
same at Hagerstown, Md., in October, 1820, to submit to the 
attention of the several ecclesiastical bodies of the church. 
After considerable discussion consideration of the subject 
was deferred until the next day’s session." The next day” 
the matter was decided to be indefinitely postponed.” 


66 Minutes, 1820:9. 

67 Hatracts from the Minutes, 1821:10. 

68 Minutes, 1822:5. 

69 Ibid., 6. 

10sec. bid, 41.9, 

71 Extracts from the Minutes, 1826:16 & 17. 

Tet OU atl: 

73 The question of union was up again in 1829—Minutes, 1829:9 
& 10—and in 1830 it was unfavorably disposed of—Minutes, 1830:6. 
The same year, under Lintner’s leadership a number of congregations 
favorable to the General Synod, withdrew from the Ministerium of 
New York and formed the Hartwick Synod. This body entered the 
ree Synod in 1831. Proceedings of the General Synod, 1831:8 


of the Lutheran Church in America 85 


At the convention of 1827 the President submitted to the 
attention of the Synod the utility of an Act of Incorpora- 
tion for the body.** Ata later session of the same conven- 
tion a committee was appointed to 


procure all necessary information in respect to the procuring of an 
Act of Incorporation; and that they be authorized to report by peti- 
tion to the State Legislature, or otherwise.”® 


At the convention of 1828 the chairman of this committee ~ 
reported that they have been informed on competent author- 
ity that any such application to the Legislature, as they 
contemplated in the resolution, would be useless.7° It was 
therefore resolved to discharge the committee. 

A step toward greater regard for congregations as mem- 
bers of the synod was taken in 1827" when a committee was 
appointed to submit to the next synod the terms and re- 
quirements under which congregations might be admitted 
to the body by lay-representation. Embodied in this same 
resolution was the decision to have prepared a mode of pro- 
ceeding in cases of impeachment of any of the clerical mem- 
bers of the synod. No record of a report of this committee 
or of any further action on this resolution is at hand. 

Thus has the course of development of the Ministerium of 
New York been traced from its beginning to the end of the 
period of interest here—1829. It is evident that the period 
of doubt as to the permanency of an organized church body 
of Lutherans in New York State had passed and that the 
Ministerium of New York was finally established with the 
promise of wide usefulness. The clerical roll, as well as 
that of the congregations, had grown and the interest of the 
churches and the laity in the organization was real. It is 
notable that for many years prior to 1829 the lay represen- 
tation was roughly equal in all conventions to the clerical 
representation. The same could not be said of certain 


74 Hz«tracts from the Minutes, 1827:8. 
75 Ibid., 16. 

76 Extracts from the Minutes, 1828:10. 
77 Extracts from the Minutes, 1827:14. 


86 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


other synods. But great changes were ahead for the New 
York Ministerium. In 1830 a split was to occur by reason 
of the desire of a number of pastors and congregations to 
unite with the General Synod. Accordingly, the Hartwick 
Synod was formed. Thus began the unhappy division in 
New York Lutheranism which is still the bane of the church 
in that State to-day. Yet a new era of growth was opening 
up, especially for the old Ministerium. A new stream of 
immigration was soon to flow from Germany and the num- 
ber of the churches and of the members thereof was to be 
greatly increased. 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINISTERIUM OF PENNSYLVANIA, 1793-. 
1829. 


Having studied the development of the synodical life of 
the Ministerium of New York to 1829 it is in order now to 
return to consider the course of development in the Minis- 
terium of Pennsylvania, picking up the threads of the story 
with the year 1793, or immediately after the revision of the 
constitution which has been studied above. 

At the convention held in 1793 the Ministerial Order 
(Constitution) was again considered and 


various additions to the Ministerial Order were proposed and ac- 
cepted, and it was resolved that they be printed as an appendix.’§ 


Doubtless these were the “Additional Articles to this Regu- 
lation of the Ministerium” as attached to the Constitution 
of 1792.7" 

Chapt. IX of this constitution seems not to have been put 
into effect until after the action of the convention of 1801 
when it was 


finally decided and resolved, to divide our United Congregations into 
the following districts, in which a special meeting shall be held at 
least once a year at the places herein appointed.®° 


78 Doc. Hist., 263. 
79 Ibid., 259. 


80 Ibid., 319 & 20. A list of districts, etc., is included in the reso-- 
lutions given therein in full. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 87 


While it is true that the matter of district organization was 
not of the highest importance, it is nevertheless not without 
significance that the constitutional provisions were nine 
years in being put into operation. Obedience to authority 
and conformity to adopted regulations do not appear to have 
been especially important in the eyes of the churchmen of 
that day.®: It is also to be observed that after successfully 
carrying the demand for representation in the synodical 
meetings, the laymen showed their real attitude of indiffer- 
ence by neglecting their duties so that in Pennsylvania dur- 
ing this period the attendance of lay delegates was generally 
very small. 

Although there was no constitutional provision for the 
office of Treasurer, one was elected in 1804 and he made his 
first report of congregational contributions in 1806.°2. At 
this same time another matter of far-reaching importance 
first became agitated. At the convention of 1805 a letter 
from Philadelphia, signed by certain laymen, opened up the 
whole question of the introduction of the English language. 
A committee was appointed whose recommendations were 
unanimously agreed to. These were, in effect: (1), that 
the Ministerium of Pennsylvania remain a German-speak- 
ing body; (2), that English-speaking Lutherans may form 
separate congregations; (3), that the Ministerium recog- 
nize such congregations and receive their delegates and 
preachers. It was then moved, “‘that the above three propo- 
sitions in the report of the committee be regarded as a sup- 
plement to our Constitution, and be added to it.’’*? This 
action which must appear to people of the present day as 
narrow and short-sighted must also have appealed as at 
least questionable to men of that day as a note in the proto- 
col reveals, namely, 


A note will not, we hope, be taken amiss. This Synodical Meeting 


81 Jacobs, op. cit., 324-6. Statement of conditions referred to and 
other evidences of a deteriorated church life. 

82° Docs Hist., 345:362 fi. 

83 Ibid., 352-4; Ministerial-Ordnung as reprinted in 1813:29. 


88 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


was one of the most remarkable. Its history is worthy of being pre-. 
served for posterity. The ruling presence of the Lord was evident. 
Earnest and heartfelt prayer—so many men present—and, as is 
easily imagined, great differences of opinions and inclinations—new 
and important matters to be treated of—and yet the love of peace 
prevailed; and all business was transacted with a wonderful harmony 
and unanimity. Due praise be to the glory of God.*4 


The period, 1805-1818, shows no evidence of constitu- 
tional development or change, but it is one which ought not 
to be passed by in silence. It was a period of numerical 
growth and internal strengthening. Missionary interest was 
stirred and activities in that respect were furthered through 
the agency of the “‘travelling’ missionaries. The “Hvange- 
lisches Magazin” was begun and continued between 1811- 
1817 ;*° active interest in a Bible Society was shown, and a 
movement was made toward the establishment of a semi- 
nary in union with the Reformed Church. Among a certain 
element, at least, a spirit of progressiveness and zeal for 
great accomplishment can be discerned. 

The grand example of a purpose and zeal for advance- 
ment was in the impetus given to the establishment of a 
general union of the Lutheran Synods then in existence in 
the United States. At the convention of 1818** the follow- 
ing resolution was passed: 


that the Synod thinks that it were desirable if the various Evangelical 
Lutheran Synods in the United States were to stand in some way or” 
another in closer connection with each other, and that the venerable 
Ministerium be charged to consider this matter, to prepare such a 
plan for a closer union, if the venerable Ministerium deem it ad- 
visable, and to see to it that this union, if it be desirable, be brought 
about, if possible. 


In furtherance of this, at a later session of the same conven- 
tion it was resolved, 


84 Doc. Hist., 360. 
85 Ibid., 428. 
86 Ibid., 517. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 89 


that the officers of Synod shall contribute (sic) a corresponding com- 
mittee to bring about, whether practicable, a union with the other 
Evangelical Lutheran Synods in the United States.87 


Inasmuch as the immediate concern at this point is to trace 
the internal development of the Ministerium of Pennsyl- 
vania, the part of the Ministerium in bringing about such a 
union, and its early withdrawal from its fellowship after it 
was formed, will not be entered upon here but will be con- 
sidered under the division below which is specially con- 
cerned with the study of the origin and development of the 
General Synod. 


THE CONFERENCES. 


A feature of synodical development that was to have an 
important influence upon the size and strength of the Minis- 
terium was the District Conference. As has been shown, 
the constitutional provision for division into conferences 
was finally put into effect in 1801. At that time seven dis- 
tricts were set off, grouped thus: those congregations about 
Philadelphia, Easton, Lancaster, York and Baltimore, re- 
spectively, and a district in Virginia, and a western dis- 
trict.°° After a decade had passed these district or special 
conferences had assumed ‘“‘synodical proportions” and were 
“oradually growing into synodical organizations.’’®® In 
several instances the conferences were progenitors of 
synods. Before 1829 the Mother-Synod lost three import- 
ant sections of her possessions: in 1818 the western 
churches withdrew; in 1820 those in Maryland and Vir- 
ginia, and in 1825 those west of the Susquehanna.” 


THE END OF THE PERIOD. 


In the period, 1818-29, nothing of great moment in inter- 


87 Ibid., 522. 

88 Ibid., 319, 20. 

89 Jacobs, op. cit., 335. 

90 Details of the withdrawal of all of these will be given below 
when the organization of these synods is studied. 


90 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


nal growth and development of the Ministerium is to be ob- 
served. As has just been noticed, three groups of churches 
broke away and became, each one, the nucleus of a new 
synod. But the divisions were not productive of bitterness 
and enmity, at the time, and all three children seem to have 
remained on excellent terms with the mother. If, during 
this period, nothing of great moment is to be observed, cer- 
tainly a vigorous and useful career was being pursued by 
the synod. To the present-day observer the only blot of 
great importance on a fair record was the position of aloof- 
ness from the General Synod which was assumed after 1828. 
Generally, in other respects, the synod was doing a com- 
mendable work. In home missionary activity this was 
notably illustrated.°: No changes in constitutional ar- 
rangements appear to have taken place during this period. 
A thorough-going amendment of the Constitution of 1792 
was not made until 1841.° Synodical conventions were 
taken up for the most part with deliberations concerning 
ministerial supply and appointment; with receiving reports 
from delegates to other ecclesiastical bodies; reports on set- 
tlements of disputes in congregations, and with schemes and 
plans for co-operating, and even joining in with the German 
Reformed Church in important ventures. The reports of 
the travelling missionaries were important and exhibit a 
commendable activity in the areas just opening up for set- 
tlement in the back country. A mis-proportion of time 
seems to have been given to hearing of and deliberating 
upon excuses for absences from the convention. Possibly 
this is excusable when it is considered that the Ministerium 
had still to prove itself and to command the obedience and 
respect of its members. The Ministerial Meeting was regu- 
larly held and in this, as the constitution provided, all mat- 
ters concerning admissions to and exclusions from the min- 
istry were considered, although recommendations for ordi- 
nation by congregations concerning fitness of candidates 


91 See Verhandlungen or Minutes, passim. 
92 Doc. Hist., 248. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 91 


and catechists who were then supplying them, were received 
in the synodical sessions, as well as the complaints or ex- 
pressions of satisfaction with respect to their pastors. In 
a word, the Ministerium was, by the end of the period, well 
established and growing in power and strength. Organiza- 
tion, the desideratum of Muehlenberg, had indeed been 
achieved and under its wholesome influence the Church, as 
represented in the Ministerium, was prospering. 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNOD OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1803- 
29. PRELIMINARIES. 


In the study of district synodical organization, the next 
interest is with the Synod of North Carolina. It must how- 
ever be noted that a study of the earliest history of the Lu- 
theran Church in North Carolina can not be made apart 
from that in South Carolina and Georgia. Several settle- 
ments of Lutherans and some explorations by them are said 
to have occurred in the 17th century, but that question need 
not be entered upon here.®? More important, and less dis- 
puted, Lutheran beginnings in the Carolinas are to be found 
in the migration of the Palatines who sought refuge from 
the waste and fury of Louis XIV. Queen Anne of England, 
moved by their distress, invited them into her realm. Some 
of them were settled in New York; some came over with 
De Graffenreid and Mitchell to New Berne, N. C.; some 
settled in South Carolina, principally in Charleston and 
along the Congaree, Saluda, and Broad Rivers; others have 
been traced to settlements in the Orangeburg District and 
along the Savannah River.®* In these places they became 
safely located, and having brought with them all the fea- 
tures of their life in the old home, settled permanently as a 
blessing to the land. In most cases the settlements were 


93 Bernheim, A History of the German Settlements and the Lu- 
theran Church in North and South Carolina, 49-67; Hallman, His- 
tory of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of South Carolina, 19. 

94 Bernheim, op. cit., 44. 


92 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


German, containing both Lutherans and Reformed church- . 
men. 

Another very important foundation of Lutheran church 
life in the South was laid by the Salzburgers who first came 
into Georgia in 1734 and founded Ebenezer, twenty-five 
miles up the Savannah River. These people had been 
forced from their European homes by the fury of religious 
persecution.®”° 

From these centers direction and oversight of churches 
spread and as the eighteenth century advanced Lutheran 
congregations were permanently established in North Caro- 
lina, and Georgia. They were also to be found in Virginia 
and Tennessee but these were largely the results of the mi- 
gration of pioneering folk from Pennsylvania and repre- 
sent another line of origin. However, especially in the case 
of Tennessee, common interest drew all of the southern con- 
gregations into close co-operation. 

The War of Independence caused great changes in Ameri- 
ean life. Destruction following the conduct of the War, 
and the accompanying moral and religious decline brought 
serious problems to the churches of all denominations. 
However, the German people in the South, particularly 
those in the rural districts, were not so profoundly affected 
by these influences. Yet even among them some effects 
were to be observed. The greatest of these was the lack of 
ministers, for only a few remained to serve the churches. 

The first attempt toward re-organization of the Lutheran 
Church in the Carolinas under the new form of civil govern- 
ment was the application of the congregation of St. John’s 
Church, Charleston, to the State Legislature for a charter 
in 1788. 26 March, 1784, this was received and the congre- 
gation was organized as a corporation under the title and 
name, “The Lutheran Church of German Protestants.’’®” 
Shortly after direct relations with Germany were opened | 


95 Jacobs, op. cit., Chapt. 9. 
96 Bernheim, op. cit., 274-8. 
97 Ibid., 278. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 93 


and in 1787 the Rev. John Charles Faber arrived, having 
been called to Charleston.®* In the same year ministers, 
direct from Germany, began to come into North Carolina. 
These were sent by the Helmstaedt Mission Society, of 
which the Rev. Abbot Velthusen was the leading spirit.°° 

The congregations, especially in North Carolina, were 
growing and becoming more firmly established but no gen- 
eral organization of any kind appears to have been at- 
tempted either there, or in any Southern State, except the 
unusual “Corpus Evangelicum” or “Union Ecclesiastica.” 
This was formed 18 November, 1787, in Zion’s Church, 
Lexington District, S. C., and was an ecclesiastical body 
which was to have supervision over all German churches in 
the interior of the State. It consisted of German Lutheran 
and Reformed pastors, with lay delegates from the several 
congregations. The organization was short-lived but its 
constitution, proceedings, 1787-9, and the Act of its In- 
corporation are preserved.'° 


THE FIRST LUTHERAN ECCLESIASTICAL ASSEMBLY IN THE 
SOUTH. 


It remained for certain Lutheran ministers in North Car- 
olina to hold the first truly Lutheran ecclesiastical assembly 
in the South, when in May, 1794, a meeting was held in St. 
John’s Church Cabarrus County. Here Robert Johnson 
Miller, a Scotchman by birth who had been licensed by the 
Methodist Episcopal Conference, was “obliged to obey ye 
Rules, ordinances, and customs of ye Christian Society, 


98 Ibid., 281. 

99 Just as the “Hallesche Nachrichten” contain important infor- 
mation for a study of the work of the Halle missionaries in Pennsyl- 
vania, so the “Helmstaedt Reports” contain accounts of the work of 
the missionaries sent by that society to North Carolina. This So- 
ciety was organized in Helmstaedt, Duchy of Brunswick, by the pro- 
fessors of the Julius Charles University. 

100 Bernheim, op. cit., 288-311. 


94 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


called ye Protestant Episcopal Church in America.’ It 
is believed!’ that this was a synodical or conferential meet- 
ing designed for this particular purpose, of which Miller 
had been notified; that it was no mere informal meeting and 
therefore it is entitled to an important place in the history 
of the development of the organization of the Lutheran 
Church in North Carolina. 


THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SYNOD OF NORTH CAROLINA. 


The movement toward a real and lasting organization 
came just at the opening of the new century. Two special 
contributing causes leading to this organization are usually 
recognized,—first, cessation of interest in North Carolina 
as a mission field on the part of the Helmstaedt Society; 
secondly, the recognized need for an organization to take 
the place of this Society in the matter of support, especially 
in view of the greatly disturbed religious conditions. These 
followed a flood of fanatical revivalism which was in turn 
but a reaction against the moral and spiritual torpor of the 
years immediately following the realization of national in- 
dependence. There was also the general reason for such an 
organization in that the continued existence and future 
prosperity of the Church depended upon synodical organiza- 
tion. As yet no synod considered that its jurisdiction lay 
so far south. Therefore the ministers of North Carolina 
resolved to organize a new synod. Accordingly, 


101 Jbid., 887-9. Miller’s case presents a difficult matter to un- 
derstand correctly. He was ordained by Lutheran ministers as an 
Episcopalian minister and was rector of an Episcopalian congrega- 
tion—White Haven Church in Lincoln County. But because there 
was no Episcopal diocese in the region he became a member of the 
North Carolina Lutheran Synod when it was organized in 1803. He 
was at times President, Secretary and Traveling Missionary of the 
Synod. He later withdrew from the Synod to unite solely with the 
Episcopal Church. I[bid., 457; Minutes of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Synod of North Carolina from 1803-26; etc., translated by Peschau, 
cited hereafter as “Peschau,” 3, 18, 29, 47, 48. 

102 Bernheim, op. cit., 340. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 95 


Revs. J. G. Arndt, Carl A. Storch, R. J. Miller and Paul Henkel, to- 
gether with fourteen lay delegates from the congregations of Revs 
Arndt, Storch, Henkel, and from vacant congregations 


met in a special conference in Salisbury, 2 May, 1803. Pas- 
tor Arndt was chosen president and R. J. Miller, secretary. 
A constitution was proposed for adoption but it was de- 
cided to postpone such an important matter until the first 
annual meeting of Synod which it was decided was to be held 
on the third Monday in October, 1803, in Lincolnton.!% 

17 October, 18038, the “yearly meeting of the Synod of the 
Lutheran and Protestant Episcopal Church, from nine 
counties of North Carolina,” was held. In addition to the 
four ministers present at the “Special Conference,” the Rev. 
Philip Henkel—who was later in the meeting refused ordi- 
nation because of his youth—was present; also there were 
lay delegates from the congregations in five counties. The 
officers which had been elected at the previous meeting were 
re-elected. The chief, and practically the only, item of busi- 
ness was the consideration of the Constitution which had 
been proposed for adoption at the “Special Conference.” 
After consideration, item by item, and discussion, it was 
adopted with the following chief provisions: Art. I. <A 
yearly meeting is to be held on the third Monday in October, 
but Special Conferences may be called if the welfare of the 
synod requires it. “In all the business transactions each 
one can express his opinions freely.” Art. Il. Membership 
of the Synod is of two grades, first, ministers; secondly, one 
lay delegate from each congregation, properly certified. 
“All the lay delegates from the various congregations 
served by one pastor taken together, have but one vote.” 
Art. III. Each convention elects its own president. Art. 
IV. Qualification for doing the work of a minister depends 
upon written evidence of an “Irreproachable life.’ Ordi- 
nation usually is dependent upon ‘“‘a sufficient and satisfac- 
tory acquaintance with the New Testament in the Greek 


LOS ou Peschau, a: 


96 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


language, his faith (doctrines of the Church) and the Latin 
language,” but the rule might be dispensed with if talents in 
another direction are offered in substitution. ‘‘No candi- 
date shall be ordained anywhere in the congregation which 
has called him as pastor.” Art V. Synod has a duty to 
assist vacant churches in getting pastors, and in providing 
supply-pastors for the administration of the Holy Com- 
munion for such congregations at least twice a year. Art. 
VI. Pastors to qualify for service in the churches of the 
Synod shall qualify by certificate as to regularity of ordina- 
tion and uprightness of life: Art. VII. Provisions are 
made for preaching, prayers, and administration of the Holy 
Communion at conventions of Synod. Art. VIII. The 
Synod shall contribute to the best of its ability toward re- 
lieving the necessities and granting the requests of all “‘our 
congregations” in North Carolina and other states. Art. 
IX requires the keeping of records by the pastors. This 
constitution was adopted and ordered to be signed by the 
proper officers.1°* The only other item of business at this 
convention was the “petition from Mr. Krieson” asking for 
the ordination of Philip Henkel. The request was refused 
on account of Henkel’s youth.” 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNOD, 1804-17. 


In October, 1804, the Second Convention of the Synod was 
held and by resolution some additions were made to the con- 
stitution, while certain other items of business were trans- 
acted. A disciplinary article was passed with reference to 
any one who “leads openly vicious life.” By resolution it 
was also ordered that the “Twenty-One Articles of the 
Augsburg Confession be published for the benefit of the 
Church.” It is interesting to note that a resolution set 
“next March” as the time for a ‘Special Conference” to con- 
sider the propriety of Philip Henkel’s going to Lincoln in 


104 Peschau, 4-6. 
105 Ibid., 6. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 97 


Pastor Arndt’s place. Surely the ministerial supply was a 
matter of great moment in their eyes since they called a 
special conference to deliberate concerning one change. It 
should be noted, however, that it was “designed to have 
Philip [Henkel] ordained by this Special Conference.” 
Likely the doubt of the propriety of Philip’s taking Pastor 
Arndt’s place was due to his lack of ordination.’ 

As the years passed the life of the Synod continued with 
little variation so far as can be discerned from the minutes. 
The usual business of ecclesiastical bodies came before the 
conventions and was transacted. The number of regular 
ministers in attendance at the conventions did not grow 
rapidly, but an increasing number of “‘candidates” and lay 
delegates is to be noted. The territory of the Synod grew by 
admission of congregations in South Carolina,?*’ and from 
Tennessee.!°® Luther’s Catechism was set as the basis of in- 
struction,’°® but no very strict denominational conscious- 
ness or exclusiveness was practiced, although this was in- 
deed growing.'*® An interest in the negro slaves was mani- 
fested when it was 


Resolved, that pastors have permission, on the wish and pledge of 
their Christian masters, to baptize their slaves,.111 


A missionary interest was expressed in the appointment of 
a “travelling missionary” to be sent out annually, and 
shortly reports of work in Ohio and Virginia were heard."” 
A movement toward a closer relationship with a sister 
synod was advanced in 1811 when the Revs. Storch and Sho- 
ber 


introduced and advocated the opening of a correspondence with the 


106 Ibid., 6 & 7. 

107. Ibid., 11. 

108 fbid.; 13. 

109 Ibid., 14. 

110 Jbid., 10 & 11: Bernheim and Cox, The History of the Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Synod and Ministerium of North Carolina, 29 & 30. 

111 Peschau, 9 & 23. 

Ligeni pid, 211 316,.20: 


98 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Pennsylvania Synod, in accordance with the warmly expressed wishes 
for a closer union with the brethren of our common faith.18 


A certain pride, as well as the necessity for defense, ap- 
pears to have called forth the resolution at the convention 
of 1812, 


that our Church Constitution be printed in the English language and 
that the Scripture passages belonging to each section be printed with 
the same, so that it cannot be said that we have no Church disci- 
pline.114 


As the Synod grew both in numbers of pastors and con- 
gregations, included in at least four states, it became stricter 
in its regulations. In 1814 it was resolved that failure to 
send a letter of excuse by any pastor for non-attendance 
upon the meetings of the Synod for three years should re- 
sult in automatic expulsion from synodical membership," 
while in 1815'"° the question of whether a minister could or 
should leave his congregation to go elsewhere without first 
ascertaining the opinion of Synod on the matter having 
been discussed, ‘“‘all said, no.’ These may be taken as 
strong points of evidence for the increased growth and 
power of the Synod.'*’ The rule with respect to a minis- 
ter’s leaving his congregation to go elsewhere had at least 
one instance of observance which is to be found in the case 
of Jacob Scherer who in the convention of 1816 asked such 
permission which upon protest from the delegate from his 
congregation Synod denied.1'* Then, too, in 1817" it was 
decided that 


no book shall be introduced into the public service in our churches 
without first being endorsed by Synod, and this endorsement be in- 
serted in the book. 


113 1bid., 15: 
TA idl: 
11 el Out e: 
116 Ibid., 25. 
117 In 1816 a list of “ministers in our connection,” totalled 24— 
8 pastors, 9 candidates, and 7 catechists. Ibid., 28, 9. 
118 Jbid., 29. 
L197 eLbid.coo: 


of the Lutheran Church in America 99 


At the same convention a candidate was dismissed from the 
Ministerium and it was resolved that if any congregation of 
the body should take him as pastor, the congregation would 
thereby automatically expel itself from the synodical con- 
nection.!”° 


THE REVISED AND ENLARGED CONSTITUTION. 


At this same convention the synodical name was adopted 
and the synodical constitution was revised and enlarged. 
The synodical name was then, “The Evangelical Lutheran 
German and English Synod of North Carolina and Adja- 
cent States.”"* In Art. I of the Constitution’? a confes- 
sional basis is laid down definitely for the first time in 
American Lutheran History. The Twenty-One Articles of 
the Augsburg Confession are declared to be the points of 
union for the Lutheran Church, and “every minister before 
ordination, pledges himself to the same.’’’? Art. II sets 
forth that the Synod consists of ordained ministers and can- 
didates for the ministry, and is to meet annually on Trinity 
Sunday, in rotation of counties.1*4 


1 ZORELUIO. OS. 

BPA sds 

122 Shober, A Comprehensive Account of the Rise and Progress 
of the Blessed Reformation of the Christian Church, cited as “Lu- 
ther,” 152-6. At the convention of 1820—see Peschau, 44,—“the 
Constitution, as it is contained in the book called ‘“‘Luther,’’ with the 
exception of principles and rules changed since then” was ratified 
anew. 

123 While confessional requirements had been made in earlier 
days in the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, they had by this time 
(1817) been ignored. The minister’s confessional subscription was 
usually embodied in a “Revers,” see above, pagres 

124 This change of time of meeting from October to the Spring 
of the year was taken in October, 1817. Trinity Sunday, 1819, was 
set for the next meeting. No meeting was to be held in 1818 owing 
to short time between October and Trinity Sunday of that year. But 
—Peschau, 52—it was, in 1822, “Resolved, Unanimously that the sec- 
ond article of the Constitution in the book “Luther’’ be dropped as 
far as the same deals with the time when Synod shall be held, for 
this article was placed there by a mistake.” In 1825—Peschau, 62— 
it was further ‘Resolved, that the second Article of our Constitution 
be so changed that every Annual Convention of Synod have the liberty 
of deciding on the time and place of next meeting.” 


100 The Development of the Synodicai Polity 


Art. III provides for lay membership in the Synod, every 
congregation being given, the right to send deputies who, 
upon proper certification, are entitled to a seat and vote. 
Art. IV sets forth regulations for voting of lay deputies who 
have a right to vote by congregations 


so that every congregation has a vote, and the majority decides; but 
the lay deputies taken together, have no more votes than the number 
of ministers belonging to our ministry respecting the general con- 
cerns. 


Art. V determines the officers of Synod and their qualifica- 
tions. Art. VI sets down qualifications for ordination, and 
Art. VII provides the method of receiving pastors other 
than those licensed or ordained by a synod in the United 
States.12> In Art. VIII the degrees of the ministry are set 
down as four: catechist, candidate, deacon, and pastor.'”® 
Art. IX provides for ministerial service in vacant congre- 
gations and for the administration of the sacrament at 
synodical meetings. Art. X requires ministers of every 
grade to keep records which are to be reported annually to 
Synod. Art. XI lays down the duty of catechization by 
every preacher and prescribes the catechism to be used and 
the minimum period of such instruction. These provisions 
are in accord with earlier synodical action.2’7 Art. XII 
gives the requirements for acknowledgment of full member- 
ship in the Church—confirmation and participation in the 
Lord’s Supper. Art. XIII provides for the method of 
amendment of the Constitution. 


125 Peschau, 62, “Resolved, That the 7th Article of our Constitu- 
tion be so changed...... so that the Article 7 would read: No minis- 
ter can be received as belonging to our church who has not been or- 
dained or licensed by a regular (or lawful) Synod in the United 
States, etc.” 

126 A footnote states that these were finally established after 
years of deliberation in October, 1817, and “in conformity to the 
Synodical decrees of the Northern States.” See also Peschau, 28. 
The Article prescribes that those of the first two degrees are under 
license; the third under ordination, but confined to his congregations; 
the last conveys general authority. 

127 Peschau, 8, 14. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 101 


THE MEETING OF 1819. 


The meeting of 1819, regularly to be held on Trinity Sun- 
day, was advanced to April 26th. The reason given for the 
liberty taken in advancing the date was that there had come 
from Pennsylvania an invitation to send a delegate tu the 
convention of the Ministerium in Trinity Week, 1819, to 
participate in the deliberations of that body concerning the 
advisability of bringing about a union of the Lutheran 
Synods in the entire land. Obviously, if the Synod of North 
Carolina did not meet until Trinity Sunday, no such dele- 
gate could be elected.'?* Synod was consequently called to 
meet earlier. Upon the question as to whether this then 
was the Synod for 1819 it was decided by the convention 
that it was, and a quorum being present, business was trans-~ 
acted.’?° The Rev. Mr. Shober was elected to be the dele- 
gate to the convention of the Pennsylvania Ministerium. It 
was at this meeting of the Synod of North Carolina that the 
first signs of difficulties which were to lead to the formation 
of the Tennessee Synod appeared. These difficulties were 
due partially to the ordination of David Henkel and J. E. 
Bell by Philip Henkel, “under an oak tree.” ‘In this man- 
ner did they separate themselves from us.’’*° At the next 
convention of the Synod, 28 May, 1820, Paul, Philip and 
David Henkel and Bell took possession of the church in 
which the convention was to be held. The President of the 
Synod, Storch, pled for unity but the Henkels refused to 
yield.**! As a result the Tennessee Synod was formed. 
Bell repented of his acts and as a result his ordination was 
pronounced to be valid. Shortly afterward he went over to 


128 Ibid., 36. 

129 Ibid., 35, 36; Bernheim, op. cit., 435 ff. 

130 Peschau, 48. 

131 Ibid., 41, 42. However, Bell repented and reported that 
Philip Henkel had decided to unite with the synod again and that he 
would abide—according to the constitution—to the will of the ma- 
jority. He never appeared at the Synod again. I[bid., 47. The 
issues involved in this first rupture in the Lutheran Church in 
America will be set forth more fully in the study of the founding of 
the Tennessee Synod below. 


102 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


the Presbyterians.**? It wag resolved at this meeting “and 
that unanimously so” that 


hereafter no ordination shall be legal in our church, or considered 
valid, which is not administered under the authority or instruction of 
Synod, and is performed by at least two ordained ministers.1%* 


At this same convention Art. III of the Constitution was 
so changed that the delegates thereafter were to present 
written testimonials attesting to their elections. By more 
than a two-thirds majority of those present everything done 
at the Synod of 1819 was ratified as was the Constitution of 
1817 with the exception of the principles and rules changed 
then.1*4 The ordination (Baum-Ordination) of David 
Henkel was pronounced invalid and he was declared to be 
“no minister of the Lutheran Church of North Carolina and 
adjacent states.’’1%5 


THE SYNOD OF NORTH CAROLINA AND THE PLAN-ENTWURF. 


Shober reported as delegate to the Convention of the 
Ministerium of Pennsylvania in 1819 and said that 


a plan had been agreed upon which had been printed, setting forth 
how all the Synods could join in one General Synod. This plan had 
already been long in circulation among us. Synod does not need to 
adopt the same as it does not fully agree with the instructions we 
have given.136 


The question now was, shall we adopt the plan?’’*7 The 


132° Ibid., 43, 49; 50. 

13307 hig. 48. 

134 Ibid., 43, 44. 

135 Ibid., 44, 45. Peschau notes that the quotation just given is 
underlined in heavy red in the protocol. 

1386 Ibid., 36. When Shober had been appointed delegate in 1819 
a committee was also appointed to give him “instructions,” and he was 
informed that if a constitution for a general synod was drawn up 
conforming to these, then the constitution might be said to have been 
ratified already; if, however, resolutions were adopted differing from 
the instructions, then such resolutions would need to be presented to 
the Synod for consideration and decision. 

187 Ibid., 46. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 103 


plan was considered item by item and adopted 15 to 6. 
Thereupon two ministers and two lay-delegates were 
elected, according to the provisions of the plan, to meet with 
representatives of other synods in October of the same year 
at Hagerstown, Md., to consider a constitution and the or- 
ganization of the General Synod.* The North Carolina 
Synod took an active part in the organization and develop- 
ment of this general body.**® 


PROPOSED UNION WITH THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 


Down to 1829—the date of the conclusion of interest here 
—nothing else noteworthy in the realm of church govern- 
ment appears to have been done by the Synod. Accord- 
ingly, the study is closed herewith with the further brief 
description of a project of union with the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in the territory. At the convention of 1821 
of the Synod of North Carolina the Revs. Adam Empie, G. 
T. Bedell, and Duncan Cameron were present, being intro- 
duced through a letter from Bishop Moore, and having been 
elected “by the English Episcopal Church for the purpose 
of bringing about a union between us, if possible.”’'*° <A 
committee of the Synod was chosen to consult with these 
representatives on a plan of union to be laid before the 
Synod. Such a plan, consisting of five parts, was submitted 
the next day and was accepted. This provided, first, that 
mutual arrangements were to be permitted that were not 
opposed to the fundamental principles of the respective 
churches; secondly, the Episcopal Church was to have the 
right to send representatives annually to the synodical con- 
vention, which representatives were to have seats as honor- 
ary members, to debate on all propositions, and to vote, 
except in decisions which affected the Lutheran churches 
alone; thirdly, the same privilege was given to the Lutheran 


138 Ibid. 

139 <A full description of this will be given when the organization 
and development of the General Synod is studied below. 

140 Peschau, 48. 


104 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Synod to send representatives; fourthly, ‘‘all ministers of 
our Church shall have the right to a seat as honorary mem- 
bers among them, and theirs with us”; fifthly, the Episcopal 
Church gave assurance that Lutheran students of theology, 
if well recommended, would be taught free of all expense, in 
the Episcopal Seminary in New Haven.‘ Immediately 
representatives of the Synod to the next convention of the 
Episcopal Church were elected. At the convention of 1822 
a letter was read from the secretary of the Episcopal Con- 
vention setting forth that the plan of union just referred to 
had been adopted by that convention and that four repre- 
sentatives had been elected. Three of these appeared and 
took their seats. 


It was not deemed necessary on our part to appoint a committee to 
confer with said gentlemen [the three representatives] as to whether 
there was anything else to be done to bring about a union.!42 


Notice being given that the Episcopal Convention for 1823 
would be held in Salisbury, two ministers and two lay-dele- 
gates were elected as representatives.'*? These attended 
the sessions'** but after this nothing more appears of the 
fraternal relations between the two bodies, and while a 
“bond of friendship” continued, the interchange of dele- 
gates fell into disuse. Thus the project failed. It had been 
an attempt at an unnatural union. Two independent 
churches, neither willing to give up its prerogatives, could 
not be expected to harmonize.1*° 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNOD OF OHIO, 1819-29. THE 
“OHIO SPECIAL CONFERENCE.” 


Next in date of organization, and now the subject of con- 


141 Ibid. 

142° Ibid., 51. 

143 Jbid., 52. 

144 Bernheim, op. cit., 463; Extracts from the Minutes of the New 
York Ministerium, 1823:18, 19. 

145 See Shober’s full statement in Extracts from the Minutes of 
the New York Ministerium, 1823:19-21. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 105 


sideration, was the Synod of Ohio. Very early in the cen- 
tury the churches belonging to the Ministerium of Pennsy]l- 
vania in distant parts of the country™*® began to hold “Con- 
ferences” for common encouragement and deliberation over 
common problems. Due to the great distance from the 
main territory of the Ministerium, and the barrier of the 
Alleghenies, the churches in Ohio developed an independ- 
ence which was soon to call forth a separate synodical orga- 
nization.'*7 As the tide of immigration following the open- 
ing of the Ohio country flowed westward, a goodly number 
of Lutheran people went west to seek homes. The mission- 
aries of the Church followed.'*8 In 1812 the first district 
conference in the west was held in Ohio.'*® All of the eight 
ministers present were members of the Ministerium of 
Pennsylvania (four are given as absent) but had been given 
permission, on account of the distance to synodical meetings 
in the east, to assemble at some place west of the mountains. 
The chief business and interest of the members was the 
supply of ministers and the pastoral care of young congre- 
gations. The “Ohio Special Conference” continued to meet 
for the same purpose and with the same pretensions, with 
varying numbers in attendance, until the connection with 
the mother-synod was broken, an account of which will be 
given below. 

The Conference of 1814 prepared a series of questions to 
be laid before Synod.'*° The first of these asked permission 
to send but one preacher and one delegate of their number 
to the meetings of Synod as the representatives of the whole 
Conference. This was granted. The second asked per- 
mission to examine the sermons and diaries of their candi- 
dates without the necessity of sending the same to the Min- 
isterium for examination. This was not granted but it 


146 See above, page 89. 

147 Sheatsley, History of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of 
Ohio and Other States, 10. 

148 Doc. Hist., 370, 389, 401. 

149 Ibid., 452; Sheatsley, op. cit., 51-3. 

150 Doc. Hist., 466, 7. 


106 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


was resolved that the representatives at each convention 
should bring with them the sermons and diaries for the pur- 
pose of examination. The third asked permission to decide 
as they thought proper with reference to their candidates’ 
services in their congregations. This was granted. In 
these requests it is possible to see the beginnings of a very 
definite breaking away of the congregations in the west, 
principally in Ohio. At the Conference in 1816 it was 
unanimously resolved to request the Ministerium of Penn- 
sylvania to allow the Conference the privilege of forming its 
own separate synodical body. At the convention of the 
Ministerium of 1817 this request was presented and was 
refused.*! At the same convention, however, it was al- 
lowed that the Special Conference in the State of Ohio might 
license applicants and renew licenses but that thereafter 
each candidate and catechist should send his diary and one 
sermon to the Ministerial meeting each year.'** 


A SYNODICAL FORM ASSUMED. 


At the Special Conference in September, 1817—twelve 
pastors and nine laymen being present—the reply of the 
Ministerium to the request for permission to form a sepa- 
rate synodical body does not appear to have been considered. 
But it appears that the matter of separation was discussed 
and the next Special Conference—in 1818—may be said to 
have arrived at the true synodical proportions. One may 
therefore speak of the Synod of “Ohio and Adjacent 
States.’’153 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNOD OF 1829. 


After the separation there seem to have been no changes 


151 Ibid., 500. 

152 Ibid., 506. 

153 It included pastors and congregations in Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
and later at least in Wayne County, Indiana. Proceedings of the 
Twelfth Synodical Meeting, 1829:23 & 24. Beginning with 1825 the 
Proceedings are of the “synodical meeting’; previous to that date 
they are of the “general conference.”’ 


of the Lutheran Church in America 107 


either in organization or purpose. The ministers met as 
for a Special Conference. At the meeting in 1818 three 
men were ordained to the ministry ;** the next year several 
of the pastors were ‘‘earnestly admonished to keep within 
the rules of the ‘Ministerial Order’ in the administration of 
their stewardship.’”** In the absence of direct evidence to 
the contrary it is safe to conclude that the “Order” referred 
to was that of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania to which 
all had subscribed and by which all had been governed in 
their synodical relations even until the previous year. 

At the meeting of 1819 the subject of participation in the 
organization of the General Synod was before the body and 
occupied much time, drawing forth much serious considera- 
tion. The relation of the body to the General Synod, how- 
ever, will be discussed later in the proper place. The Synod 
decided not to unite with the general organization, there- 
fore its line of development is to be understood to have been 
separate and different from that of the former. 

Apart from the matters already set down here, a study of 
the minutes of the synod until the end of the period con- 
sidered here reveals nothing of unusual interest or import- 
ance. Missionary activities and interest seem to have been 
the chief concern. Ministerial supply continued to be the 
chief problem as it was for all new bodies operating on the 
frontier. Cordial relations with other Lutheran bodies and 
with certain Reformed bodies through the exchange of fra- 
ternal delegates, and more especially of copies of the printed 
minutes, were continued. The number of those at the 
synodical meetings, both pastors and laymen, increased and 
the total number of congregations in union with the Synod 
increased to not less than 115, with 15 ministers.’ Evi- 
dence of the zeal and activity of the Synod is seen from the 


154 Sheatsley, op. cit., 59. 

155 Ibid., 64. Beginning with the meeting of 1818 full reports of 
the transactions are available. See Bibliography. 

156 Ibid., 65, 6. 

157 Proceedings of the Twelfth Synodical Meeting, 1829:23 & 24. 


108 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


consideration of such matters as the establishment of a 
theological seminary, and church paper.*°* 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TENNESSEE SYNOD, 1820-29. 


The history of the origin of the Tennessee Synod, which 
it is now in order to consider, is bound up with the “first 
rupture in the Lutheran Church in America.’’** Accord- 
ingly before taking up the story of the development of the 
synod proper, it will be necessary to find out the issues and 
features of this rupture. 


THE “FIRST RUPTURE IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN 
AMERICA.”’ 


At the Fifteenth Convention of the Synod of North Caro- 
lina in October, 1817, it was decided that as the “fall time, 
often being a sickly time,’’**° was not satisfactory for the 
time of meeting, such time be fixed for Trinity Sunday, and 
inasmuch as this day in 1818 was considered as too close at 
hand, it was decided to have the next convention on the 
“first Trinity Sunday, 1819.” However, in defiance of this 
decision, the convention of 1819 met on 26 April, several 
weeks earlier than the time agreed upon, and that also by 
constitutional provision. This was explained and ex- 
cused on the ground that 


we were invited from Pennsylvania to send a delegate to their Synod 
for the purpose of considering the advisability of bringing about a 
union of the Lutheran Churches in the entire land, a thing we could 
not have done (i. e. send a delegate in time) if we had come together 
on the day set.!2 


158 Proceedings, passim. 

159 Bernheim and Cox, op. cit., 42. 

160 Peschau, 33. 

161 Peschau, 35, 6; Trinity Sunday, 1819, was 6 June, Doc. Hist., 
ae Henkel, History of the Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod, 


162 Peschau, 36. The Pennsylvania Synod met in Baltimore on 
Trinity Sunday, 1819. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 109 


It was further explained that the officers had called Synod 
to meet at this time but that those living farthest away had 
received notice of it. Synod then considered the question 
as to the claim of the meeting to be called the convention for 
the year, and after the letters from the officers of the Penn- 
sylvania Synod had been read, “Synod unanimously, with- 
out an opposing word allowed and sanctioned this Synod, as 
the Synod of 1819.” It was also unanimously agreed that 
the President, with the sanction and consent of two or three 
neighboring pastors, have the power to call a synodical 
meeting for the purpose of adopting other regulations, 
etc.1° 

Previously there had been considerable difficulty over 
David Henkel’s desired ordination.'** At the convention of 
1819 ‘“‘many complaints were made against David 
Henkel,’?® as a result of the hearing of which it was de- 
cided that he be given a license as Catechist for six months. 
It was further decided that at the expiration of that time if 
he could bring a written testimony that there was peace in 
his congregation, he should be reinstated as a Candidate.'*° 
“With this decision David expressed himself as being satis- 
fied, promised to do better,” and appeared to reconciled with 
his accuser. 

But the appearance was deceptive and on Trinity Sunday, 
1819, the time fixed in the Constitution for the regular an- 
nual meeting, but for this year made unnecessary by the 
meeting of 26 April, David and Philip Henkel, and Joseph 
Bell, and seven lay delegates came together at the place ap- 
pointed for the meeting of Synod—St. John’s Church, Ca- 
barrus County—and declared themselves the Synod of 
North Carolina. The door being locked against them, 
Philip Henkel ordained David and Bell “under an oak 


163 Peschau, 36. Henkel, op. cit., 15, 16. 

164 Bernheim and Cox, op. cit., 43-5; Peschau, 20, 23, 29. 
165 Peschau, 38, 9. 

166 Ibid., 39. 


110 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


tree.’®7 This was not only irregular but was in defiance of 
the authority of Synod with which David Henkel was then 
on probation, and contrary to the action of the Synod in 
1813 whereby it was decided'** ‘“‘that, furthermore, hereaf- 
ter no one receive full ministerial authority except alone 
by the Synod, and that after an examination.”’'*® 

The regular convention for 1820 met on Trinity Sunday, 
near Lincolnton, N. C., in a church served by David Henkel. 
The devotional exercises on Sunday were carried on with- 
out interruption but when on Monday the Synod came to 
meet, it was found that the Revs. Paul and Philip Henkel 
Candidate Bell and David Henkel had taken possession of 
the church. Efforts at reconciliation were made but they 
failed, and as David Henkel held the church by virtue of his 
pastorate, the Synod adjourned to meet at a near-by hotel. 
Here it was regularly organized and this group continued 
the North Carolina Synod. Bell expressed repentance and 
united with the Synod again as a result of which his ordina- 
tion was pronounced to be valid.‘ David Henkel, who had 
received the same ordination and at the same time, was de- 
clared to be “no minister of the Lutheran Church of North 
Carolina and adjacent States,” and Synod declared its irre- 
sponsibility for his conduct and doctrines.’ Yet certain 
members of the Synod sympathized with the position of 
those who protested against the trend of affairs in the 
Synod.1” 

On 17 July, 1820 five ministers and nineteen laymen, 
representative of Tennessee congregations, met in Solo- 


167 Ibid., 39, 40; Bernheim and Cox, op. cit., 45; Henkel, op. eit., 
16-18. 

168 Peschau, 19. 

169 Bernheim and Cox, op. cit., 45. For the presentation of this 
whole matter from the view-point of the Tennessee Synod, see Henkel, 
op. cit., 16-20. 

170 Peschau, 41-48. 

171 Ibid,, 44;-5: 

172 Report of the Transactions of the Second Conference in Ten- 
nessee, 1821:5. 

173 Bericht, von den Verrichtungen der ersten Conferenz,...... in 
dem Staat Tennessee, etc., 1820: 3 & 4. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 111 


mon’s Church, Cove-Creek, Green County, Tennessee, and 
organized the Tennessee Synod. David Henkel was absent 
but gave evidence that he considered himself a member. 
Thus was bgun an independent synodical body which con- 
tinued until 1921 when it was merged with the North Caro- 
lina Synod. After 1860, notwithstanding its name, it had 
no churches in Tennessee.'** 

What underlay the difference of opinion and ill-feeling 
which sprang up between the two parties in the North Caro- 
lina Synod and led to the breaking away of the one party 
and the formation of this new body? In the first place, it 
should be clearly understood that the differences were by no 
means superficial nor were they hastily arrived at. For 
some years causes had been operating to bring about a final 
break. A match was needed to kindle a blaze; an occasion 
was needed to precipitate a crisis. The occasion was found 
in the change of the date of the convention of 1819. But 
any untoward event would doubtless have brought the crisis 
which was bound to come due to a series of fundamental dif- 
ferences of opinion and view-point.'” 

First of all may be mentioned the conflict of temperament 
between David Henkel and Gottlieb Shober, leaders of the 
opposite parties.‘7® David Henkel later proved to be a man 
of excellent natural endowments, possessed of great under- 
standing and strength of mind. He chafed under the re- 
fusal of Synod to advance him and was ready for trouble. 
Also his theological view-point as it came to develop was far 
from that of the opposing side of which Shober was a fine 
representative. Shober appears to have been a man of 
some ability but he was of another view-point and tempera- 


174 Jacobs, op. cit., 394. 

175 Bernheim, op. cit., 440-6; Henkel, op. cit., Chapt. 1; Bernheim 
and Cox, op. cit., Chapt. 6; Jacobs, op. cit., 393-4; Bente, op. cit., 
148 ff; Bericht for 1820, 12-31. 

176 For an expression of the feeling between Shober and D. 
Henkel, see the “Review” published by Shober in 1821. 


112 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


ment than Henkel.177 Hence the possibility and the proba- 
bility of a conflict if conditions were right.‘ 

In the second place, as just indicated, there was a great 
difference of theological opinion and position to be found in 
the Synod. As the early years of the century passed, due to 
many influences, the Lutheran consciousness of the Synod 
had largely passed away. This was, it is true, not confined 
to the Synod of North Carolina, but was evident also in 
Pennsylvania, and even to a larger extent in New York. 
Confessionalism was little regarded and unionistic tenden- 
cies were very strong. The Henkels came to represent a 
traditional Lutheranism and a rather high degree of Con- 
fessionalism, and thus became dissatisfied with the trend 
of theological opinion and attitude in the Synod.!”° 

In the third place, there was an irreconcilable difference 
of opinion concerning a general organization of synods.**° It 
is not without great significance that the occasion of the 
break came as a result of a change in date of synodical con- 
vention made to make possible the election of a delegate to 
the convention of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania in 1819 
where a “Plan of Union” was to be deliberated upon. As 
will later appear the founders of the Tennessee Synod were 
vigorous in their opposition and most consistent, later, in 
the continuance of a position of aloofness.**! 


177 A sketch of Shober’s life is given in the Evangelical Review, 
Vol. 8. “Rev. Shober was a man of decided opinions, unyielding in 
everything which he considered right.”—Bernheim, op. cit., 441. 
Evangelical Review, 8: 412-4.—“with a mind that knew no dissimu- 
lation, a lofty independence, and ardent temper, and a character de- 
cidedly affirmative, he frequently experienced difficulties and en- 
countered points other than pleasant in his pilgrimage through life, 
and which a disposition more pliant could have averted.’’ That he 
was a Moravian rather than a Lutheran seems to be well established. 
—Henkel, op. cit., 19; Bernheim, op. cit., 441, 2. For the view, how- 
ever, ee personal differences did not cause the rupture, see Henkel, 
Oe Cit 2a) 

178 Bernheim, op. cit., 442. 

179 Henkel, op. cit., 23: 

180 See below for evidences. 

181 Bernheim and Cox, op. cit., 48 & 9. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 113 
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE TENNESSEE SYNOD. 


The meeting of 17 July, 1820, having opened, the first 
business was the adoption of a basis of organization, to- 
gether with certain regulations.'*? In the first article the 
German language is adopted as the medium in the transac- 
tions of the Synod. An explanatory note says that “very 
few entirely English who accept the doctrines of our church, 
or desire to preach them” are to be found. Article II sets 
forth the doctrinal basis of the Synod, specifying the Holy 
Scriptures and the Augsburg Confession as the basis, and 
Luther’s Small Catechism as the text-book of instruction, 
allowing, however, the “Christian Catechism” published in 
New Market, Va., as an auxiliary work for the explanation 
of Luther’s Catechism. In Article III the requirements for 
qualification as a teacher or officer are first set forth. Then 
the obligation of teachers to teach ‘‘according to the Word 
of God and the Augsburg Confession and the doctrines of 
our Church” are set down with the further requirement that 
no teacher of this body be allowed to “‘stand in connection 
with any organization in connection with the so-called Cen- 
tral or General Synod.” Article IV sets forth qualifica- 
tions for church membership in which connection it is in- 
teresting to note that a foot-note explains that baptism and 
confirmation in other Christian Churches establishes eligi- 
bility to commune and be received into the churches con- 
cerned without re-baptism or re-confirmation. Articles V 
and VI provide two grades in the office of teaching—the 
ministry—Pastor and Deacon, and give details of ways of 
entrance into these offices and state the privileges attaching 
to them. Article VI further states that the offices in the 
congregations shall be as they had customarily been: Elder, 
Deacon, etc. Article VII provides for naming of pastors at 
each Conference who were to conduct ordinations, sign ordi- 
nation certificates, and see that good order was maintained. 
These were also to sign all proceedings of the Conference of 


182 Bericht, 4-10. 


114 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Synod. A chairman who should read all that was neces- 
sary, make propositions, etc., might also be appointed, as 
also a secretary. But it was to be understood that these 
need not serve throughout the sessions of any convention. 
In Article VIII the time for the annual meeting was set as 
the third Sunday of October. The place of meeting was 
made optional but the name, Tennessee Conference or 
Synod, was to be retained although there be members in 
other states. In Article IX membership was declared to be 
of preachers and lay-delegates elected by their congrega- 
tions. But the number of votes cast by the lay-delegates 
were never to exceed the number of preachers present. Sur- 
plus delegates might be present in advisory capacity. 
Article X deals with the matter of a Treasury. A treasurer 
of Synod was not deemed necessary, for the time. The 
necessity of congregational treasuries was recognized and 
the individual congregations were allowed to carry them on 
as they desired. But a report from each church council 
was required to be made at each synodical meeting. Arti- 
cle XI requires the ministers to keep records on specified 
matters. Article XII stipulates the education of the chil- 
dren in the doctrines of the church and in the German lan- 
guage. Article XIII specifically mentions the Synod of 
North Carolina as a body in which ministers of the Synod 
cannot hold membership “because we cannot regard it as a 
true Lutheran Synod.” Article XIV provides for amend- 
ment “‘by a majority of the votes, but in such a manner as 
not to come in conflict with the design and intention of the 
foregoing principles.” After agreeing upon the “basis and 
regulations” the Conference—or Synod—proceeded to the 
transaction of other business. ‘The Evangelical German 
Lutheran Tennessee Conference’”—or Synod—was then in 
working order. Several acts relating to ordination were 
passed and a resolution was made to answer a petition for 
spiritual services from a number of people in Missouri. An 
important decision ordered the annual visitation of all con- 
gregations by one of the older ministers for the purpose of 


of the Lutheran Church in America 115 


inspection and instruction to the younger ministers and 
their congregations. 

Thus was organized the Tennessee Synod. Born of a 
church conflict it nevertheless had its justification. It was a 
truly confessional body and in that respect was much farther 
advanced than all of the older bodies of the day. As the de- 
velopment of its organization is studied it will be noted that 
it had not only doctrinal differences from the other synods 
but that it had also some very important differences in prac- 
tice and theory concerning the government of the Church.'** 
The doctrinal differences were due to conflicting view- 
points with respect to the symbols and marks of Lutheran- 
ism. The age was one of unionistic tendencies in denomi- 
national relations, even as it was the “‘Era of Good Feeling’’ 
in American social life generally. Denominational con- 
sciousness was at low ebb, among none more so than among 
the Lutherans as presented in the three older synodical or- 
ganizations. The withdrawal of certain members from the 
North Carolina Synod and the subsequent founding of the 
Tennessee Synod were in large measure due to an apprecia- 
tion, as a result of study, of the symbols of the Lutheran 
Church. The new synod’s course was not easy nor was its 
path free of great obstacles.1** But it persevered although 
it was to lose its significance when all other Lutheran bodies, 
though in varying degree, came to a position of more posi- 
tive confessionalism. 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TENNESSEE SYNOD, TO 1827. 


The second convention of the Synod met 21 October, 1821, 
with four ministers, one deacon, and an applicant for the 
ministry present, together with fifteen deputies. One min- 
ister was absent. A number of communications were 
read expressing various desires, one being that ministers in 


183 Henkel, op. cit., 262-5. 

184 Ibid., Chapt. 4. 

185 Report, 1821. For a digest of the Minutes of the Tennessee 
Synod see Henkel, op. cit., 43-78. 


116 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


connection with the new synod should be sent to serve the 
petitioners. Rev. Adam Miller was appointed to visit the 
petitioners and all congregations belonging to the Synod, in 
accordance with the constitutional provision. At the re- 
quest of some of the brethren of North Carolina it was re- 
solved annually to hold a Synod in North Carolina or in an 
adjoining state and in the English language, to be governed 
according to the same constitution as the German Tennes- 
see Synod.%* “Those who compose this Synod, may ap- 
point the place and time of the first meeting; when and 
where they deem it expedient.” It was made the duty of 
every minister and deacon to keep a register of the names 
of all the baptized belonging to the churches. On resolution 
a copy of the Augsburg Confession and a copy of the min- 
utes of the Synod were to be deposited in every church. 
The applicant, Joseph Harr, was examined and ordained as 
a deacon. A committee was appointed to compile and print 
the objections against the General Synod. This was in- 
cluded in the Report of the Meeting.**’ 

The third convention met October 21 ff., 1822, with the 
same ministers present and the same one absent as in 1821. 
Three applicants and sixteen deputies were present.'** Pe- 
titions were received from churches asking for ministers: 
one from Missouri asked for ordination for one who served 
them; one from North Carolina asked reception of their 
minister who hitherto had been a minister of the Separate 
Baptist order. Synod resolved, in the latter case, that inas- 
much as it was a German-speaking body and the applicant 
could not understand German, he could therefore have no 
seat and vote. Yet he was to be examined and, if qualified, 
was to be ordained a minister of the “Evangelical Lutheran 
Church.” If he came to understand German he was then to 
have a seat and vote in the Synod. While he understood 
only English, he was recommended to organize, with others, 


186 Report, 1821:7 & 8. 

187 Pages 13-36. At the next Convention the Synod approved 
the objections set forth—Report, 1822: 13. 

188 Report, 1822. 


of the Lutheran Church in America Tay 


an English-speaking synod, in conformity with the resolu- 
tion of the previous year. Synod, in answer to a request, 
gave a deliverance on the question in what respect it was 
governed by a majority of votes.*® In this connection the 
fundamental difference in position as over against the Gen- 
eral Synod was set forth by the Synod. It was further 
unanimously considered expedient that every one who in- 
tended to fill the office of Pastor should be publicly examined 
before the synod. Upon the question of “whether slavery 
is not to be considered a great evil which is tolerated in our 
land,” synod resolved that it “unanimously consider it a 
great evil in our land, and wish that the government if pos- 
sible, would devise some means, as an antidote to this evil.” 

The fourth convention of the Synod was held October 
20 ff., 1823.1° Many petitions for services by the Synod 
from churches without pastors were received and the usual 
evidences of opposition to the Synod of North Carolina and 
the General Synod are to be noted in the deliberations and 
decisions. Notice being taken of a report in the Maryland- 
isch Deutschen Zeitung of the decision of the Pennsylvania 
Synod to withdraw from the General Synod, a communica- 
tion embodying certain questions was sent to that Synod by 
the Tennessee Synod, the purpose being to learn the posi- 
tion of the Pennsylvania Synod.?*! 

The fifth convention was held in 1824 with about the 
usual number of attendants.1°? The Rev. George H. Rie- 
menschneider of Virginia, lately withdrawn from the Synod 
of Maryland-and Virginia, and the Rev. Daniel Moser, a 
late ministerial member of the Synod of North Carolina, 
were received, both having given satisfactory evidence of 
their acceptance of the position of the Tennessee Synod. 
Moser’s congregation came in also. A number of petitions 
from congregations in North Carolina, Tennessee, Ken- 
tucky, and Virginia, asking for ministerial services were 


189 Ibid., 9-12. 
190 Bericht, 1823. 
191 IJbid., 11-14. 
192 Bericht, 1824. 


118 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


received and it was decided that six of the pastors should 
each give two monthsg’ service in these congregations before 
the next meeting of the Synod. Petitions from three con- 
gregations in North Carolina were received praying that a 
committee be elected to meet a similar committee from the 
North Carolina Synod, if the latter appoint such, to meet 
and show publicly the differences in doctrines between the 
two synods. The Committee of the Synod of Tennessee 
consisted of Messrs. Caspar Keinadt, Adam Leonard, and 
Jacob Keinadt.1®? 

A letter from Carl Gock of Pennsylvania was also read‘** 
in which he expresses himself as dissatisfied with the Gen- 
eral Synod and states that he has had reprinted the report 
of the committee of the Tennessee Synod in which are set 
forth the objections to the constitution of the General 
Synod, of which reprints he has circulated 1200. Gock was 
not a Lutheran but was interested to defeat a movement for 
a general organization in the Reformed Church in Pennsyl- 
vania. 

The Synod met in its sixth convention September 5 ff., 
1825.1 Report was made that the questions referred to 
the Synod of Pennsylvania in 1823 remained unanswered 
but it was deemed expedient to appoint a committee to draw 
up another request and submit that to the Synod of Penn- 
sylvania. It was also noted that the Synod of North Caro- 
lina refused to negotiate with the committee appointed in 
1824 to bring about an understanding. Through a letter 
from the Rev. J. Sherer of the North Carolina Synod, it was 
learned that the latter considered “‘that the committee did 
not entitle them as a genuine Lutheran body,” and that it 
was offended because the Synod of Tennessee “appointed 
farmers to constitute the committee.” The usual grist of 
synodical business was run through and nothing further of 
importance appears at this convention except a declaration 


193 See Bericht der Committee, bound with Bericht, 1824. 
194 Jacobs, op. cit., 360-1. 
195 Report, 1825. 


of the Lutheran Church in America Libs 


of Synod that the report falsely circulated that in 1821 it 
had been resolved to allow no minister in connection with 
the General Synod to preach in the meeting-houses of the 
congregations of the Synod was contradicted. Synod de- 
finitely said that it could not arrogate to itself any authority 
to prescribe to any congregation whom it should suffer to 
preach in its meeting-house. ‘All congregations in this 
respect are independent of the Synod.” 

The seventh convention met September 4 ff., 1826, with a 
somewhat increased attendance and representatives from 
Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky.’ 
Though the North Carolina Synod had not, in any way, ac- 
cepted the overtures of the Synod looking toward an amica- 
ble adjustment of differences existing between the two 
bodies, it adopted a resolution authorizing certain of its 
members to hold a public meeting in North Carolina for the 
purpose of disputation. The usual matters of synodical 
business occupied the attention of synod for the remainder 
of the period of the convention. 

On September 8 ff., 1827, the eighth convention was 
held.*®? Report was made that the ministers of the Synod 
of North Carolina had ignored the public meeting ordered 
last year to be held for the purpose of disputation. It was 
resolved that a new constitution be drawn up owing to cer- 
tain defects and blemishes in the old one. A committee was 
appointed to prepare one for examination. Such having 
been presented, it was examined, annexed to the journal, 
and allowed to lie before the Synod for one year. It was 
decided that if no objections of importance were made, or 
amendments proposed, before the next convention of Synod, 
it was to be considered to be the adopted and ratified consti- 
tution of this Synod. At this convention an unusually large 
amount of business was transacted but by far the most im- 
portant item was the consideration of the constitution. 


196 Report, 1826. 
197 Report, 1827. 


120 The Development of the Synodical Polity 
STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS OF 1827. 


In the “Introduction” it is stated that there should be a 
distinction made between “Fundamental Articles,” such as 
are necessary for the good government of the Evangelical 
Lutheran Church in all ages and countries, because they are 
founded upon the Holy Scriptures, and “Alterable Articles,” 
which are of a temporary and local nature. Under “Fun- 
damental Articles,’ Article I sets forth the Holy Scriptures 
as the “only rule of doctrine, and church discipline.” Arti- 
cle II recognizes the ‘“Augustan” Confession of Faith com- 
prised in twenty-eight articles as a rule of explaining the 
Holy Scriptures. Every minister is bound to teach and to 
defend the doctrines “‘contained in every article thereof,” 
and the Synod shall have no power to transact anything 
which “may be repugnant to any article of this confession.” 
Article III provides that ministers and lay-delegates from 
congregations “shall be equally entitled to seats and votes 
in this body.” Neither class may transact business with- 
out the other, provided both classes are represented. No 
business shall be transacted secretly. Article IV enumer- 
ates the powers of Synod. They are: (1) to devise means 
for the promulgation of the Gospel; (2) to detect and ex- 
pose erroneous doctrines and false teachers; (8) to examine 
and consecrate candidates for the ministry. But Synod 


shall have no power to receive appeals from the decision of congrega- 
tions, with respect to the excommunication or receiving of members. 
For every congregation in this respect is independent of the Synod. 


Article V forbids incorporation of the Synod by the civil 
government, as well as the holding by Synod of an incorpo- 
rated Theological Seminary. It was also forbidden to have 
“any particular treasury for the purpose of supporting mis- 
sionaries, Theological Semiaries, etc.”’ Article VI speci- 
fies two grades of the ministry, viz: Pastors and Deacons. 
A pastor may perform every ministerial act; a deacon is 
only to baptize, to preach, and to catechize. But deacons 


of the Lutheran Church in America 121 


and pastors must be called to the office by one or more con- 
gregations. Deacons must be under the care of a pastor or 
the Synod. Article VII states, 


No subject whatever, which may be comprehended under any of these 
Articles, shall be decided, either according to a majority, or a min- 
ority of votes; but only according to the holy Scriptures, and the 
Augustan Confession of Faith. 


Under “Alterable Articles,’’ Article I specifies that each 
congregation shall have a right to send one delegate to the 
conventions of Synod, who shall have a seat and vote. Arti- 
cle II establishes the name of the body as “The Evangelical 
Lutheran Tennessee Synod,” but declares that it shall not be 
construed so as to give the least prerogative to the members 
who reside in the State of Tennessee. The purpose is 
merely to distinguish it from the body, “called ‘the Synod of 
North Carolina and adjoining states’ who are a branch of 
the General Synod.” Article III sets forth that the Synod 
“shall meat (sic) from time to time, upon their own ad- 
journments.” Article IV provides that the “Synod shall at 
every session appoint a president, for whatever length of 
time, they may deem proper.” He shall perform the usual 
duties of a presiding officer, but “his name as president, 
shall not be inserted in the report of the minutes.” <A sec- 
retary who shall perform the duties usually committed to 
that office, shall be appointed. Article V orders that all 
debates must first be held in the German language, and re- 
sumed in English, provided that there shall be both German 
and English members present. Article VI specifies Lu- 
ther’s Small Catechism as the text-book for catechization, 
and the “ ‘Concordia’ as a directory in Theology.” Article 
VII provides the method for alteration of the “Alterable 
Articles,” viz: at any session, by two-thirds vote of those 
present. “All points and propositions, which may be com- 
prehended under any of these alterable articles, shall be de- 
cided by a majority of votes.” 


122 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


The ninth convention was held September 8 ff., 1828.1°° 
An increase in attendance of lay-delegates is noticeable, 
while three students of theology were received under the 
care of the Synod. Memorials were received concerning 
the constitution among which were some objections and 
prayers for amendments. Whereupon the constitution was 
critically examined, some alterations and amendments were 
made, and then it was unanimously adopted and ratified. 


EXAMINATION OF THE ALTERED CONSTITUTION, AS OF 1828. 


An examination of the constitution as thus altered re- 
veals a number of changes which while not of fundamen- 
tal importance, nevertheless show such a tendency toward 
greater strictness as to demand a full description of the re- 
sult. The division, “Fundamental Articles,” does not ap- 
pear, though it is clear that the six articles first set down 
are of that nature and it is stated in the “Introduction” that 


nothing relative to doctrines and church-discipline ought to be trans- 
acted according to mere will of the majority, or minority; but in 
strict conformity to the scriptures. 


Article I remains the same though a change of composition 
is noted and emphasis is put upon the inspiration of the 
Holy Scriptures. Article II sets forth the “Augustan” Con- 
fession of Faith, it would seem, in a more negative light 
than in the earlier draft. Instead of it being ‘“‘a rule of ex- 
plaining the holy Scriptures,” it is a “true declaration of 
the principal articles of faith and church-discipline” which 
contain nothing ‘“‘contrary to the Scriptures.”’ Instead of 
every minister’s being bound to “‘teach and to vindicate the 
doctrine or doctrines contained in every article thereof,” it 
is stated that “no minister is allowed to teach anything... . 
repugnant to any article of this confession.” Luther’s 
Small Catechism is also included as a compendium of scrip- 
tural doctrine, and for its utility for catechization. Arti- 


198 Report, 1828. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 123 


cle III remains virtually the same, though an addition makes 
legal secret meetings, if occasion should arise “‘in which the 
church would be liable to a persecution by civil authority.” 
Article IV sets forth the same objects of the business of 
Synod but is changed to specify that after examination of 
candidates for the ministry, ‘“‘this body shall nominate one 
or more pastors” who shall consecrate the candidate. A fur- 
ther change is that in which the independence of the congre- 
gation is more strongly asserted than in the former draft, 
i. e., “but this Synod shall have no power to receive appeals 
from the decision of, nor to make rules, nor regulations for 
congregations.” Article V remains the same. Article VI 
remains the same in the important points but the provision 
in the first draft that the deacons be under the care of a pas- 
tor or the synod is not included in the constitution finally 
adopted. 

The general title ‘“‘Alterable Articles” is changed to 
“Local and Temporary Regulations.” Of these Article I 
remains the same, except for a slight change in composition. 
Article II in the first draft is completely dropped. Article 
III becomes Article II without change; Article IV becomes 
Article III and is practically the same except that the pro- 
vision that the name of the president, ‘‘shall not be inserted 
in the report of the minutes” is changed to, “it shall not be 
considered necessary to publish in the report of the trans- 
actions who had been appointed president.” Article V re- 
mains the same as Article IV. Article VI drops out, but 
recognition of Luther’s Small Catechism is made in the first 
division of the constitution. No mention of the “Concor- 
dia’ is made in the final form. 

The tenth convention was held September 7 ff., 1829.1°° 
The usual run of business was transacted but a new spirit 
seems evident in the resolution to exchange copies of the re- 
ports of the transactions of the Synod with the German Re- 
formed Synod of Pennsylvania, and in the decision to send 
copies also to the Ministeriums of Pennsylvania and Ohio. 


199 Report, 1829. 


124 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


In keeping with an early provision which had not been ob- 
served in the intervening years two pastors were to visit 
and examine all congregations and ministers in connection 
with the Synod. 


THE POLITY OF THE TENNESSEE SYNOD. 


It would be in order, in keeping with the plan of procedure 
here, to close the study of the development of the Tennessee 
Synod at this point. But it is evident that its history and 
activity have importance for this subject as the embodiment 
of the spirit of opposition and dissent. It will, therefore, 
be of profit to outline briefly the position of the Tennessee 
Synod with special reference to its theory of church polity, 
because it was unique among Lutheran Synods. While it 
was unique at that time it may be said that it was not to be 
alone later in its position for it was joined at least by the 
Missouri Synod. What were the distinctive points of its 
theory of church government? 

These points appear immediately upon a careful reading 
of the Constitution of 1828. In the first place, as expressed 
in Article III, the ministerial session so much insisted upon 
and so regularly provided for in other synodical constitu- 
tions, is definitely forbidden, provided there are lay-dele- 
gates present at the meeting of the Synod. In connection 
with the constitution as adopted and ratified in 1828, David 
Henkel wrote, ‘“‘some remarks on every article of the consti- 
tution, which were also received as an explanation of the 
spirit and design thereof.’°° Relative to this Article III 
he said, in part, 


That laymen should exercise equal rights with clergymen in church- 
government, is not only scriptural, but also conducive to the preserva- 
tion both of civil and ecclesiastical liberty.2 


It is to him a proper and necessary consequence of the doc- 


200 Report, 1828: 6. 
201 Ibid., 17. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 125 


trine of the Universal Priesthood of All Believers that there 
should be no privileges or duties enjoyed by the clergy which 
are not also to be enjoyed by the laity. In Article IV a 
very important difference in view-point is expressed in re- 
lation to the right of examining and ordaining candidates 
for the ministry, and the power of Synod over congrega- 
tions. Henkel said in this connection, after he hag admit- 
ted the practical advantage of brotherly co-operation 
through a Synod, that the duty of the Synod to detect errors 
and false teachers does not take away this right and duty 
from the individual congregations and ministers, 


Neither do this body claim the exclusive right of examining and or- 
daining candidates for the ministry. For every congregation have 
the privilege of choosing fit persons for their ministers, and indi- 
vidual pastors have authority to perform their ordination....... But 
when any congregation shall request this body to examine and ordain 
the person of their choice, it then devolves on this body to perform 
this duty. 


Continuing he said, 


As the aforenamed duties devolve on all churches and ministers, they 
undoubtedly have the privilege to perform them jointly; i. e., they 
may constitute a synod. But no Christian Synod can have legislative 
powers, consequently have no right to make rules for churches. All 
necessary and salutary rules, pertaining to the government of the 
church are provided in the Scriptures; therefore, every body of men, 
who make rules for the Church are in opposition to Christ. To make 
rules for the Church is one thing, but to execute those already made, 
and to employ the proper means for the promulgation of the gospel, 
is another. The latter, but no means the former, is the business of 
this body.?°? 


Article V, setting forth the prohibition of incorporation of 
the Synod and the holding of any incorporated Theological 
Seminary, as well as having ‘any particular treasury for 
the supporting of missionaries and theological seminaries,” 
is important in its implications. The prohibition of incor- 


202 Ibid., 19. 


126 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


poration is put on the ground of the necessity of complete 
separation of Church and State, as taught in the Scrip- 
tures, the Augsburg Confession, and the Constitution of 
the United States. From the practical view-point objec- 
tion is made because, 


the church by an act of incorporation........ would have power to 
enact laws and regulations binding upon all their members, and could 
recover by a civil suit at law any property, or its value bequeathed 
to them.,?°3 


The whole objection seems to be based on the power which 
the Church would receive by virtue of incorporation, which 
indeed, a church does receive in the same manner as any 
other legal corporation. But the objection both to incorpo- 
ration and to the establishment of a common treasury seem 
to be based upon deeper reasons. Henkel, and in this he 
doubtless speaks for his party, was very mistrustful of the 
motives of the clergymen of the day, fearing a creation of a 
clerical rule which would be inimical to civil and religious 
liberty. That these fears were groundless later develop- 
ments have shown, but they were, nevertheless, real and 
powerful to Henkel and those in union with him. In Arti- 
cle VI it would appear, and this is in proper deduction from 
the whole attitude of the Synod, especially as expressed in 
Henkel’s remarks, that there was to be no grade of minis- 
terial officials other than such as were called by congrega- 
tions. “Both pastors and deacons must be called to their 
offices by one or more congregations.” The pastoral office 
and service is exalted and the congregations alone have the 
power and right of appointment or call to such high office. 
The “royal” or “universal” priesthood of believers is again 
emphasized. 

Apparent fear of clerical presumptions to the degree of 
hierarchical pretensions is evidently the reason for the pro- 
visions in Regulations III under “Local and Temporary 
Regulations.” Recognizing, in the interest of good order, 


2038 Ibid., 22. 


of the Lutheran Church in America Tey 


the necessity of a presiding officer, Synod nevertheless took 
care that no honor or continued privilege or position should 
attach to the office. Henkel remarks, that inasmuch as 


another president may be elected every day of the session, if it be 
deemed expedient, and as his office does not continue until the suc- 
ceeding session, it is not necessary that it should be published in the 
reports of the transactions, who had been appointed to this office.?°4 


The clearly evident idea underlying this is that no individ- 
ual shall be exalted above the others, even to the extent of 
being named as having presided. 

In addition to these important and distinct differences in 
matters of church polity from all other Lutheran Synods of 
the time, and as expressed in the body of the Constitution, 
attention must also be given to another very important 
point of view. Probably this is the most important differ- 
ence of all. It is set forth in Article VII of the ‘Funda- 
mental Articles” of the Constitution as included in the 
Journal of 1827, but is included in the “Introduction” to the 
Constitution ag adopted and ratified in 1828, Article VII 
dropping out completely from the body of the document. 
The “Introduction” sets forth, 


The rules and principles of church-government are contained in the 
Holy Scriptures. Therefore, no body of Christians have authority to 
dispense with or alter, or transact anything contrary to them....... 
Nothing relative to doctrines and church discipline ought to be trans- 
acted according to mere will of the majority, nor minority; but in 
strict conformity to the scriptures.?° 


Local and temporary regulations are recognized as good and 
necessary and these may be 


altered, amended, or abolished by the majority; yet they ought not 
attempt to make their decisions in such cases absolutely obligatory 
upon the whole community; because such regulations are only sub- 
servient to the execution of the rules which are founded upon the 
Scriptures.2°6 


204 Ibid., 27. 
205 Ibid., 11 & 12, 
206 Ibid., 12. 


128 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


In view of the attitude or point of view just mentioned it 
would seem that the body would more properly have re- 
tained the title, “Conference,” than have assumed that of 
“Synod.” This position was doubtless taken as a result of 
reaction against the Synod of North Carolina. As is re- 
vealed by the Protocol of the latter body?” the matter of 
decision by a majority was a mooted point between the sup- 
porters of the Synod and the Henkels. When one of the ad- 
herents of this latter group, Joseph Bell, repented of his 
stand with the insurgents and presented himself as ready to 
join the Synod again, 


He obligated himself to be governed according to our firmly estab- 
lished rules, and to submit to a majority of votes according to the 
custom of all Christian Churches in America.2° 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNOD OF MARYLAND AND VIR- 
GINIA, 1820-9. THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE 
MINISTERIUM OF PENNSYLVANIA. 


Vastly different from the Synod of Tennessee in point of 
view and theory of church government was the Synod of 
Maryland and Virginia. This body came into separate ex- 
istence in the same year as did the former, as a result of a 
peaceful division within the Synod of Pennsylvania. At the 
convention of the latter in 1820 a report of a special meet- 
ing held in Friedrichtown, Md., was presented.?°® In this 
report a request was made for permission ‘‘to organize a 
new synod on the west side of the Susquehanna.” The mat- 
ter was postponed until the question of the General Synod 
should have come up. The latter question having been dis- 
posed of, “it was now resolved that this Synod will make no 
objection whatever if a new Synod be organized on the west 
side of the Susquehanna.’?® At the convention of the 


207 Peschau, 35-43. 

208 Peschau, 43—italics mine. 
209 Doc. Hist., 551. 

210 Ibid., 554. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 129 


Ministerium of Pennsylvania of 1821 it was resolved, “That 
the expression, ‘On the west side of the Susquehanna,’ 
(page 12 of the printed copy) be cancelled as incorrect, and 
the words, ‘in Maryland and Virginia,’ be inserted.’?"! At 
the same convention, Dr. Kurtz, of Baltimore, reported that 
the preachers in Maryland and Virginia had acted on the 
permission given at the 1820 convention and had formed a 
separate synod, and that he was present as a delegate to the 
Mother-Synod. The President of the Ministerium of Penn- 
sylvania thereupon recognized him as the delegate of the 
new synod and so entitled to a seat and a vote.?!*. Later in 
the same convention a letter from the secretary of the Synod 
of Maryland and Virginia was presented in which it was 
stated that Dr. Kurtz was the delegate to the Ministerium 
of Pennsylvania, and in which an invitation was extended 
to the “‘preachers of the Pennsylvania Synod” to attend the 
sessions of the new synod. Thereupon, the Synod elected 
two delegates and also directed a letter to be written, in the 
name of the body, setting forth, “that we, with regret and 
love, recognize it as a sister synod, have received their dele- 
gates, etc.”2> Thus in a most peaceful and friendly way 
the division was made which contrasts most noticeably with 
the attitude and action of the Pennsylvania Synod toward a 
similar request, a few years before, of some of its members 
in Ohio to be allowed to form a separate synodical organiza- 
tion. 

While a separate synodical organization of the pastors 
and congregations in Maryland and Virginia was deferred 
until 1820, it must not be thought that no sectional meetings 
of any kind were held prior to that time. In accordance with 
provisions in the Constitutions of the Ministerium of Penn- 
sylvania of both 1781 and 1792, ‘Special Conferences” had 
been held. As early as 1793 a little group in Virginia or- 
ganized a “Special Conference” into which in 1807 some of 


ALT bid. 572. 
212 Ibid., 571. 
213 Ibid., 574, 5. 


130 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


the Maryland pastors regularly came. The record of the 
first conference begins, 


We four ministers of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, living and 
serving congregations in the State of Virginia, being present in Win- 
chester on the sixth day of Jan. 1793, commenced our Conference, on 
this Epiphany Sunday, by holding solemn religious services. 


There were present Revs. Christian Streit of Winchester, 
John David Young of Martinsburg, Paul Henkel of New 
Market, and William Carpenter of Culpeper (Madison.) 
Lay delegates were present from seven congregations. 
These Conferences continued to meet fairly regularly until 
1817—Maryland pastors had joined as noted above—which 
was the last of which there is any record. They were 
chiefly of a devotional and didactic character, very little 
business being transacted. They had their place in the de- 
velopment of the church but the time came when a different 
kind of ecclesiastical organization was needed.?!* A body 
with synodical powers was desired and the special meeting 
at Friedrichtown, Md., formulated the request for permis- 
sion of the synod to which all belonged to organize such a 
body. 


THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SYNOD. 


11 October, 1820, eleven clergymen and seven lay-dele- 
gates assembled and took the steps necessary for the orga- 
nization of a synod.?** As the first item of business re- 
corded there was passed a resolution that a committee con- 
sisting of three pastors and three lay-delegates be ap- 
pointed 


to draught a constitution for this Synod, and that the constitutions of 
the Pennsylvania and New York Synods be consulted by the com- 
mittee. 


214 Wentz, History of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Mary- 
land, 39-42. 
215 Proceedings, 1820. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 131 


The chairman of this committee reported in part at the 
afternoon session of the same day and requested more time 
in which to complete the report. At the session of the next 
morning the chairman, the Rev. B. Kurtz, continued the re- 
port, and it was 


Resolved, That the Constitution as reported by the Rev’d. B. Kurtz 
with the amendments made by this body, be now adopted. 


Another resolution immediately followed which provided 
that 


this constitution may be altered and amended at the next Synodical 
meeting, by a majority of the members who shall then be present. 


This first session appears to have been a busy one, marked 
by a number of progressive projects, but the only matter of 
consequence for the purpose here is the resolution laying 
upon every member of the Synod a duty of preparing ma- 
terials for a “discipline” to be introduced into the congre- 
gations, and to offer them at the next meeting. 


THE DEVELOPMENT, 1821-9. 


At the next convention, 2 September, 1821,?1° the com- 
mittee on the “‘discipline”’ reported that, in its opinion, the 
matter was of too great importance to be finished at the 
present session; that a committee to prepare such a disci- 
pline be appointed, which committee shall meet from time 
to time and to which every member of the Synod shall com- 
municate his ideas upon the subject. The committee was to 
report at the next convention. At the next convention the 
committee submitted a form of discipline which was ex- 
amined at length, amended, and adopted, ‘‘nem. con.’?7 It 
was then resolved that it be carefully revised by the Presi- 
dent and further that it be submitted to the consideration of 
the next General Synod and that “‘it be obligatory upon each 


216 Proceedings, 1821. 
217 Proceedings, 1822. 


132 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


member of this Synod, to prepare the minds of our people, 
for its acceptance.”’ 

At the next convention?'® the “Formula of Government 
and Discipline,’ having been submitted to the consideration 
of the General Synod—held October, 1823,—was considered 
by the Synod together with several amendments which had 
been proposed by the General Synod. Discussion followed 
as each proposed amendment was considered separately, 
after which it was 


Resolved: That it is the duty of our several Church-Councils to in- 
troduce this Formula, as prudence and Christian principles may dic- 
tate. 


It was ordered to be translated into the German language, 
and after receiving the most advantageous proposal for 
printing, it was allowed that 1,000 copies in each language 
should be printed. This is to be understood as the basic 
statement of principles underlying the Lutheran govern- 
ment and discipline, and was so later received by the Gen- 
eral Synod, with additions which in turn were adopted by 
the Synod of Maryland and Virginia.2*®° This Formula was 
shortly afterward instrumental in settling a dispute in the 
congregation at Strasburg, Virginia, for in May, 1824??° 
it was proposed as a basis for union between the factions 
and was thereupon unanimously adopted by the congrega- 
tion. At this same convention a committee was appointed 
to revise the constitution of the Synod, the same to report at 
the next session. 

It has not been possible to find the constitution of the 
synod effective previous to this time, but inasmuch as the 
Synod was organized by men who had come out of the Penn- 
sylvania Synod, it is reasonable to suppose that the consti- 
tution of that body was largely taken over. This is borne 
out when the comparative shortness of time needed to adopt 


218 Minutes, 1823. 
219 Minutes, 1828. 
220 Minutes, 1824. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 133 


a constitution at the first convention is remembered, and by 
later references to the Ministerial Ordnung in which a 
chapter, article and section number corresponds exactly 
with that of the constitution of the Ministerium of Pennsyl- 
vania then in effect.22- Reference to re-eligibility of of- 
ficers for election made at the convention of 1825°*? also 
shows a similarity to the constitution of the Ministerium of 
Pennsylvania. 

The committee on revision of the constitution of the 
Synod did not report at the next meeting. This might have 
been due to the absence of the chairman, Dr. Kurtz.?23 In 
1826774 without reference to the above mentioned committee 
it was 


Resolved, That a committee be appointed to revise, amend, and trans- 
late the constitution of this Synod and report the result of their 
labors at the next Synodical meeting. 


No reference to the report of this committee is to be found 
in the proceedings of the next synodical meeting.??> The 
same is true for 1828.?7° 

At the convention of 1829 the “brethren in Virginia”’ 
were absent and synod deeply regretted this absence and 
“their not writing to the Synod agreeably to the constitu- 
tion.”??7. On inquiry it was found that the “brethren in 
Virginia” had during the past year held a conference ‘‘with 
the view of taking preparatory steps to form themselves 
into a distinct synod.” It is likely that the committee on 
the synodical constitution had been dilatory, for upon mo- 
tion the committee was released, whereupon immediately 
another committee of three was “appointed to resume and 
complete, until our next session, a suitable constitution for 
the government of this synod.” The matter of a constitu- 


221 Minutes, 1823: 16. 
222 Minutes, 1825. 
223 Minutes, 1825. 
224 Minutes, 1826. 
225 Minutes, 1827. 
226 Minutes, 1828. 
227 Minutes, 1829. 


134 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


tion was finally settled at the convention of 1830??‘—-when 
it was the “Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Maryland”’— 
when it was 


Resolved, That the Constitution for the government of Synods, as 
prepared and recommended by the General Synod, be now read. 
Whereupon it was read and after a few amendments adopted.??9 


Thus the Maryland Synod developed until the close of the 
period of interest here. It was a vigorous body from the 
beginning, and notwithstanding continued action for a re- 
vision of its constitution was really well-organized. It was 
comprised of men of influence and congregations of 
strength and it was interested in the greater growth and 
prestige of the Lutheran Church in America. This latter 
end, it believed, could be best attained through the agency 
of the General Synod, of which it became probably the 
strongest supporter of all the district synods. This rela- 
tionship will be discussed in more detail later. 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNOD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 
1824-9. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SYNOD, 1824. 


Lutheran congregations existed in South Carolina as 
early as the middle of the eighteenth century and to these 
reference has been made above, page 91. But no real knowl- 
edge of these is to be found until about the year 1787.7°° In 
February, 1788, the Legislature of South Carolina incorpo- 
rated the “Corpus Evangelicum” which has already been 
described, page 93. In 1808 the organization of the Synod of 
North Carolina was of interest to the isolated congregations. 
all over the South, and before many years had passed a few 
congregations and pastors from South Carolina had en- 
tered into synodical membership with the southern synod. 
Finally, 14 January, 1824, six clergymen met in St. 


228 Minutes, 1830. 

229 This is in Minutes of the General Synod, 1829: 29 ff. A study 
of this constitution is reserved for inclusion under a later subject. 

230 Hallman, op. cit., Chapt. 1. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 135 


Michael’s Church, Lexington District, South Carolina, with 
the intention of organizing a synod.?*! All had been at one 
time or another members of the North Carolina Synod. 
That there had been no internal strife in the Synod of North 
Carolina causing a schism would seem to be apparent from 
the statement which appears in the Minutes of that body?*? 
when note is taken of the organization of the new synod, 
nial % 


The ministers in South Carolina have since our last annual Conven- 
tion organized themselves into a body of their own, and report now in 
our letter, that they wish to co-operate with us in love and unity. Our 
president will report to them that this is also our wish. 


At the time of the organization the Rev. Godfrey Dreher 
“opened the Synod with singing and prayer,” after which 
he proceeded 


to detail the anterior rites and titles which were established by our 
ancestors in the year 1788 and sanctioned by the government of this 
State, for the benefit of the Evangelical Lutheran Churches within 
the limits of its jurisdiction. 


This doubtless had reference to “The Corpus Evangelicum” 
which was being cited as a precedent for Lutheran organi- 
zation in the state. Upon discussion as to the organization 
of a synod of the state it was 


unanimously agreed, that the situation and wants of the Evangelical 
Lutheran Churches in this section of our country, require that a 
Synod be now organized. 


An election was held; a candidate for the ministry was or- 
dained; lay delegates were received as properly sent; the 
“Augsburg Confession” was accepted as “the point of union 
in our church”; rules were made and motions passed, and 
the Synod was organized and ready for action. On Novem- 
ber 18 ff., 1824, the Synod again convened in larger num- 


231 Transactions, 1824. 
232 Perchau, 59. 


136 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


bers and with representatives also from Georgia.?** After 
Synod had organized and had transacted some business, it 
was 


Moved and Resolved, That the Rev. Messrs. Bachman, Bergman, and 
Hersher, be a committee for the revision and emendation of the 
Rules of our Synod, and report next Session. 


Inasmuch as this is the first mention made of any formal 
sets of rules it is entirely likely that the Constitution of the 
Synod of North Carolina then in force had been brought 
over by those withdrawing from that body to form the new 
Synod. 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNOD, 1825-34. 


The second regular convention met November 24 ff., 
1825.75 At this meeting, upon motion, the committee on 
revision and amendment of the Constitution and Rules of 
the Synod was given until the ensuing session to prepare its 
report. As one of the members of the committee had been 
expelled from the Synod, another was named to serve with 
the two other original members. 

What this committee reported at the convention of 1826 
it is not possible to say as no record of the minutes of this 
meeting is available for study. Nor could those of 1827 be 
consulted. It is entirely probable, however, that the com- 
mittee referred to at the 1825 convention did not report a 
final form of constitution either in 1826 or 1827, for at the 
convention of 18287** it was stated that the 


committee to whom had been assigned the duty of framing a consti- 
tution for the use of the Synod, rendered in a report containing the 
result of their labors, which, on motion, was read by the Chairman of 
the Committee. 


233 Proceedings, 1824. Attached to these Proceedings is an ap- 
pendix containing a Report of the Committee of Synod on the State 
of the Churches within the jurisdiction of Synod. This contains de- 
tailed information of value. 

234 Proceedings, 1825. 

235 Proceedings, 1828. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 137 


Upon this, it was 


Resolved, That the constitution prepared by the committee be ac- 
cepted, and that during the recess of the Synod, a careful considera- 
tion be given it by the ministers, in order that amendments, if deemed 
requisite, may be suggested at the next convention of the ministerium, 
in order to its adoption. 


Unfortunately no record of the convention of 1829 could be 
found. No mention is made at the convention of 1830 of 
the constitution :#° nor at that of 1831 ;73* nor at that of 
1832.73 But at the convention in 1833,?°° it was 


Resolved, That a committee be appointed to draft a Constitution for 
the government of this Synod, to be submitted to the consideration of 
this Body at its next session; and that the plan of a Constitution, 
prepared some years ago by a committee designated for that special 
purpose, be the basis of such constitution. 


This Constitution, being presented at the next Convention, 
was considered, amended, and adopted and 250 copies of the 
same were ordered to be printed.?*° 

From the above it is believed that the conclusion is fair 
that the Synod of South Carolina had no constitution dif- 
ferent from that of the Synod of North Carolina until 1834, 
but that previous to that it operated under the constitution 
of the mother-synod, North Carolina, modified and changed 
to suit its peculiar needs and desires. For all purposes here 
it seems to be enough to note the above development and 
pass on. 

The question of the preparation of a general form of 
Church Discipline for the churches of the Synod came up at 
the Convention of 1830.24 At the next convention?‘? the 
committee appointed to prepare such a form reported that 


236 Proceedings, 1830. 

237 Extracts from the Minutes, 1831. 
238 Extracts from the Minutes, 1832. 
239 Extracts from the Minutes, 1838. 
240 Extracts from the Minutes, 1834. 
241 Proceedings, 1830. 

242 Extracts from the Minutes, 1831. 


138 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


they had carefully considered the Church Discipline as pub- 
lished by the General Synod and had concluded that it was 
in “conformity with the principles of our church” and 
recommended “its adoption in our churches, as far as this 
formulary may accord with the Charters by which these 
churches are governed.” The report was adopted, “nem. 
con.” At this same convention the question of union with 
the General Synod was opened; in 1833 the Synod, unani- 
mously, accepted a report, advising union with the General 
Synod, with certain minor reservations.*** 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNOD OF WEST PENNSYLVANIA, 
1825-9. PRELIMINARIES, 1823-5. 


At the convention in May, 1823, the Pennsylvania Synod 
resolved not to send delegates any longer to the General 
Synod and thus the Synod deserted the organization which 
it had been most active in bringing into existence.*‘* The 
vote on this proposition was 72-9, of which of the latter 
party a majority were from west of the Susquehanna River. 
15 July, 1823, there gathered in York, Penna., the Revs. 
Schmucker, Sr., Herbst, Jr., and Schmucker, Jr., the last a 
member of the Synod of Maryland and Virginia. They met 
for consultation concerning the present state of affairs and 
agreed that Rev. Schmucker, Sr., should publish the time 
for the meeting of the Pennsylvania Special Conference on 
the first Sunday in October. It was further agreed that the 
Rev. Schmucker, Sr., and Herbst, Jr., should “use their 
utmost influence at the Special Conference” to have certain 
resolutions passed.?*° 


248 Haxtracts from the Minutes, 1833. 

244 Verhandlungen, 1823: 16 & 17. 

245 Ms. in hand of S. S. Schmucker, attached to the Verhandlun- 
gen of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, 1823, in the “Schmucker Col- 
lection.” Inasmuch as S. S. Schmucker occupies a position of pri- 
mary importance in the Lutheran Church in America for fifty 
years, 1820-1870, a sketch of his life and work is in place here. 
The son of Rev. John George Schmucker, a prominent member of the 
Ministerium of Pennsylvania, Samuel Simon Schmucker was born 28 


of the Lutheran Church in America 139 


The “Special Conference” was held in York October 5 ff., 
1823, and consisted of pastors and lay-delegates who lived 
in Pennsylvania west of the Susquehanna River.**®° The 
first item of importance was the presentation of the set of 
resolutions which had been agreed upon at the consultation 
in York in July.***7 These were unanimously adopted. They 
set forth first, that the Conference was fully persuaded that 
the General Synod was a useful and necessary organization ; 
second, that these sentiments should be laid before the next 
convention of the Pennsylvania Synod and an effort made 
to have the Synod reconsider its action of withdrawal; and 


February, 1799. Upon the removal of the family to York, Pa., in 
1809 he entered the York Academy. At the age of fifteen he entered 
the University of Pennsylvania and remained there in residence two 
years. During this time he spent some time also in studying the- 
ology under the Rev. Dr. Helmuth, of Philadelphia. 16 July, 1816 he 
returned to York to take charge of the Classical Department of the 
York Academy. He resigned this position in November, 1817 and 17 
August, 1818 he entered the Theological Seminary at Princeton. He 
was enrolled in the second year class and completed the course 30 
March, 1820. While at Princeton he was intimate with Messrs. Mc- 
Ilvain and Johns, both of whom became Bishops in the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, and with Robert Baird. He had as professors 
Drs. Alexander and Miller. He was licensed to preach by the Minis- 
terium of Pennsylvania 2 June, 1820, and in December, 1820, began 
his work in the Woodstock, Va. parish. He was ordained by the 
Synod of Maryland and Virginia in September, 1821. He was a for- 
ward-looking young man, deeply concerned to advance the Lutheran 
Church in America. “When I left Princeton there were three pia 
desideria, which were very near my heart, for the welfare of our 
Church. A translation of some one eminent system of Lutheran Dog- 
matics, a Theological Seminary, and a College for the Lutheran 
Church.” (From his Diary, quoted in Anstadt, Life and Times of S. 
S. Schmucker, 112). Within ten years he saw all three desideria ac- 
complished. He early took an active part of the affairs of his own 
Synod and in the General Synod. He saved the General Synod from 
dissolution by his activity in its behalf. In 1825 he was elected as 
Professor in the newly-established Theological Seminary at Gettys- 
burg, entering upon his duties in 1826. Here he remained in active 
service until 1864 when he resigned to live a retired life until his 
death in 1873. As Professor of the Seminary he did his great work, 
all the time taking an active part in the general work of the Church. 
(For details as to his later activity see below, passim, and for fur- 
ther biographical material, see works listed in the Bibliography, un- 
der Biography). 

246 Except Kurtz of Baltimore. 

247 Verhandlungen der Special-Conferenz; Gehalten zu York- 
taun, auf den 6th. and 7th. October, 1822. 


140 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


third, that a delegation of the Conference be present at the 
next meeting of the General Synod—20 October, 1823—to 
communicate these resolutions. Following this the Secre- 
tary laid before the body the important question as to the 
convenience and usefulness of a separate synod, west of the 
Susquehanna in Pennsylvania. After consideration, it was 
resolved that such a synod is both convenient and necessary, 
and that application for permission to form such be made 
at the next meeting of Synod in Carlisle. It was then de- 
cided to print and distribute the minutes of the meeting of 
this Special Conference, and also a circular letter to be sent 
to all Lutheran preachers west of the Susquehanna River, 
both the minutes and the letter to be signed by the presi- 
dent and the secretary of the Conference. It was found 
that the number of such preachers to whom the letter should 
be sent was twenty-seven.**% 

These matters were presented to the Synod of Pennsylva- 
nia at its meeting in June, 1824, and it was resolved?*® that 
consideration be deferred until the next Synodical meeting. 
Following this a number of ministers living west of the Sus- 
quehanna assembled again on November 6 ff., 1824, at 
Greencastle, Pa., for a second Special Conference. After 
routine matters had been disposed of the chief business of 
the Conference, namely, the formation of a new synod on 
the west side of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania, 
was taken up.?°° After discussion the following resolutions 
were unanimously adopted: first, that since all are per- 
suaded of the wisdom of forming a new synod west of the 
Susquehanna, after the next meeting of the Pennsylvania 
Synod to be held in Reading—1825—“‘we be considered as 
a separate Synod’’; second, that these resolutions shall be 
laid before the next synod of Pennsylvania and in a 








248 This letter, dated York, Penna., 7 October, 1823, is to be 
found in the volume in the “Schmucker Collection” referred to in Note 
244 above. 

249 Verhandlungen, 1824: 7. 

250 Verhandlungen der Special Conferenz gehalten zu Green- 
castle, den 7ten, Sten, und 9ten November 1824. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 141 


brotherly spirit recognition as a separate synod be acknowl- 
edged; third, that the organization meeting of the new 
Synod be in September, 1825, at Chambersburg; fourth, 
that a circular letter be sent out to the brethren west of the 
Susquehanna who were absent from the Conference, giving 
them all information; and fifth, that 250 copies of the pro- 
ceedings of this Special Conference should be printed. The 
“Circular” was. included in the printed copy of the “Pro- 
ceedings,’’?*! and set forth the decision and the desires of the 
Special Conference. The size—in extent of territory and 
number of churches—of the Pennsylvania Synod, and the 
consequent difficulties of the gathering and entertainment of 
the Synod are given as the chief reasons for the formation 
of anew body. But of course, as has been shown, the desire 
to support the General Synod was the first motive for a 
separate organization. The Pennsylvania Synod in conven- 
tion in 1825 resolved that it heard with regret of the desire 
of the brethren west of the Susquehanna River to withdraw 
and form a Synod, but it was further resolved that as soon 
as this Synod could be organized, it should be recognized as 
a sister-synod.?°? 


THE ORGANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNOD, 
1825-31. 3 


5 September, 1825, twenty-one ministers and twelve lay- 
delegates met to organize the Synod of West Pennsylva- 
nia.2> EKight ministers were reckoned to be absent. It 
was unanimously resolved: 


That the old Ministerial Ordnung of the Evangelical Lutheran Church 
in Pennsylvania and the adjacent States, be acknowledged by us, as 
our Constitution, nevertheless with this special proviso, to make such 
alteration from time to time, as may by this body be deemed neces: 
sary. 


251 Pages 7 & 8. 
252 Verhandlungen, 1825: 15. 
253 Minutes, 1825. 


142 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


After officers had been elected the formal organization was 
proceeded to, and the name, ‘“‘The Synod of the Evangelical 
Lutheran Church, West of the Susquehannah in the State of 
Pennsylvania,” was adopted. Synod immediately began 
deliberation upon matters usually before such bodies in that 
day, and showed a notable vigor and purpose in the exalta- 
tion of the power and prestige of the organization. The 
second convention met 9 September, 1826.2 Thankful 
acknowledgment of a grant of $250 which the Synod of 
Pennsylvania had voted the new Synod from its treasury, as 
a sum properly belonging to the congregations comprising 
it, was made. It was also shown that a desire existed ‘“‘to 
continue in brotherly love and friendship with the above- 
named Synod.” The Synod then considered the framing 
and introduction of a “Church Government” and. author- 
ized the President to appoint three ministers from each of 
the two synodical districts—these had been erected mean- 
time—to frame a draft of a Church Government and to lay 
such a draft before their respective districts for considera- 
tion. On the next day Synod took up the consideration of 
the Synodical and Ministerial Constitution (Ministerial 
Ordnung.) The members of the first and second synodical 
districts had already deliberated upon the matter in their 
special conferences, and had inter-changed ideas. There 
were a number of suggestions for changes and improve- 
ment in the Constitution, all of which were laid over for fur- 
ther deliberation until the next convention. 

It might well be expected that discussion of rules and 
regulations would be prominent in the next convention but 
the whole matter was disposed of in a single resolution.2*° 
“In reference to the Church Discipline,” it was resolved to 
appoint a committee who should draft a Discipline, 


according to the directions and amendments of the conferences of 


254 Minutes, 1826. 
255 Minutes, 1827: 18. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 143 


both districts, as contained in their minutes; and lay the same before 
the General Synod for Confirmation.?5°% 


The Minutes of 1829 contain nothing of interest to the 
purpose here.?°? 

It appears that the Constitution of the Ministerium of 
Pennsylvania remained in force throughout this period. 
But in 1830?°§ the Constitution for Synods prepared by the 
General Synod was considered and “with little alteration 
adopted, except a few sections, which from want of time 
could not be examined.” At the next convention?*® the con- 
sideration of the Constitution was resumed and that part 
not considered at the previous convention was taken up, and 
finally approved after a minor modification was made. 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNOD OF VIRGINIA, 1829-39. 


18 August, 1829, eight ministers and two lay delegates, 
resident in Virginia, assembled 


for the purpose of taking into consideration the expediency of form- 
ing a separate and distinct Synod, consisting of the Ministers resident 

in Virginia.?2°° 
Officers were elected and a committee was 


appointed for the purpose of framing a preamble and resolutions ex- 
pressing the views and objects of the Conference. 


This committee reported at the afternoon session on the 
same day and in a lengthy statement set forth the reasons 
for the assembly. These were said to be solely for the wel- 
fare of the church in Virginia. Resolutions attached called 
for the formation of a separate Synod, understanding that 
only the most friendly feeling continues toward the breth- 
ren of neighboring synods; that the Synods of Maryland 


256 This means the Synodical Convention. 

257 <A record of the Convention of 1828 is not to be found. 
258 Minutes, 1830: 15. 

259 Minutes, 1831: 16. 

260 Proceedings, 1829. 


144 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


and of North Carolina be given copies of the proceedings 
with the hope that they will meet with their approbation ; 
that every member of the Synod exert himself to gather 
materials for a synodical constitution, and to advance the 
interest of the church and its periodicals, and “our Semi- 
nary at Gettysburg”’ ;?*' that the basis of a constitution for 
. the body “be the Holy Scriptures, the Divinity of Christ, as 
taught therein, and the unaltered Augsburg Confession.” 
October 10 ff., 1830, the members again gathered. Elec- 
tions were held and later a committee was appointed to 
draft a constitution for the Synod,?*? to report the next day. 
At that time the committee though considering the import- 
ance of the undertaking as of the greatest, recommended 
that it be discharged and that another be appointed to draft 
and present a constitution at the next annual convention for 
adoption. At the convention of 1831 this committee re- 
ported and the constitution which it presented was adopted 
as amended.?** By a later action the Constitution was or- 
dered to be printed in both German and English. 

It seems that this Constitution was not long in force, for 
at the convention of 18337°* it is recorded that the commit- 
tee to draught a constitution for the Synod informed the 
President that it was not ready to report. Later this com- 
mittee informed Synod that it was ready to report, as a 
result of which report a new constitution was considered 
and adopted, and the constitution was ordered to be printed 
with the minutes of Synod. 

During the time studied here the Synod of Virginia was 
not in union with the General Synod. While at first it did 
not appear to have been the intention of those withdrawing 
from the Synod of Maryland and Virginia to form a body 
apart from the General Synod, at the meeting in 1830, fol- 
lowing presentation of letters from congregations declaring 


261 This had been founded in 1826. 
262 Minutes, 1830. 

263 Minutes, 1831. 

264 Minutes, 18338: 5. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 145 


their desire to be apart from the General Synod, the follow- 
ing resolution was passed: “That this Synod do hereby with- 
draw from all connection with the Evangelical Lutheran 
General Synod.’’?*> Synod then felt called upon to set forth 
clearly the reasons for this action and a committee was ap- 
pointed to draught and present a statement.?°® In 1839287 
action was taken bringing the Synod into the General Synod 
again. 


265 Minutes, 18380. 
266 Minutes, 1831: 6 & 7. 
267 Proceedings, 1839: 12. 


146 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


CHAPTER IV. 
THE FIRST GENERAL SYNODICAL ORGANIZATION. 


Having studied the development of the district synods 
up to 1829, it is now in order to consider in detail the or- 
ganization and development, up to 1829, of the first general 
synodical body. “The Evangelical Lutheran General 
Synod of the United States of America,” as the constitution 
adopted in 1820 fixed the name, was this first general syn- 
odical body. 

While the name, ‘‘General Synod,” had been used in the 
records of the several district synodical organizations to 
designate the respective bodies? in general convention as- 
sembled, it is not seriously questioned that the organization 
in 1820 was the first to be entitled to the designation® “‘Gen- 
eral,” by reason of its scope and the purpose underlying it. 
Certainly it was the first inter-synodical organization in 
the Lutheran Church in America. What brought it to pass 
will be the subject of consideration later in this work. The 
present interest is merely to trace its organization and de- 
velopment. Suffice it to say here that it is held by com- 
petent historians‘ that the General Synod “saved the 


1 As the “General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
the United States,” this body was in active and continuous operation 
—it still has legal existence—until in 1918 it merged with the “Gen- 
eral Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United 
States,”—organized, 1867—and the “United Synod of the Evangelical 
Lutheran Church in the South,” organized, 1863—to form the “United 
Lutheran Church in America.” In 1918 only two synods which had 
been members in 1829 remained in membership, Maryland—successor 
to the Synod of Maryland and Virginia—and West Pennsylvania; the 
General Council contained the Ministerium of Pennsylvania and the 
Ministerium of New York, while the United Synod contained the 
Synods of North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Virginia. 
The Synod of Ohio as it existed in 1829 was never a member of any 
of these general bodies. See “Minutes of the First Convention of the 
United Lutheran Church in America,” 1918; pages 4-8. 

2 Early, “The Ministerium of Pennsylvania and the Organization 
of the General Synod,” in The Lutheran Church Review, 11:61: Con- 
stitution of the Ministerium of New York, 1816. 

3 But see title of Pennsylvania Ministerium as of 1781. 

4 Jacobs, op. cit., 362; Wentz, op. cit., 46. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 147 


church,” especially as it was becoming Anglicized, and con- 
sequently it is entitled to a high place in the history of the 
Lutheran Church in America. 


EARLIEST PROPOSALS FOR A GENERAL SYNOD. 


In 1818 there were four district synods of the Lutheran 
Church in America, namely, those of Pennsylvania, New 
York, North Carolina, and Ohio. The last had in that 
year assumed the status of an independent synod. For 
some years prior to this certain persons had evidently been 
interested in a closer drawing together of all the Lutheran 
Churches. Cordial relations existed between the bodies 
and courtesies were always extended to visiting brethren at 
synodical conventions. All the synods gave seat and vote 
to recognized members of other synods,—dual membership 
even allowed—ante, page 67,—printed minutes were freely 
exchanged, and in 1811° the proposition to open correspond- 
ence with the Pennsylvania Synod was introduced in the 
North Carolina Synod. In 1818 there were on the roll of 
the Pennsylvania Synod 98 ministers of all ranks.* These 
were serving congregations in widely separated fields. 
Those in points farthest distant were finding it difficult, 
even impossible, to get to the synodical conventions, and to 
profit by the synodical prestige and inspiration. Therefore 
they were asking for permission to break away from the 
mother-synod and to establish independent synods. In 
such case all relationship might cease; there might even 
come to be hostility and unhealthy rivalry among several 
bodies, if no bond of union held them together and bound 
them to the same ideals and principles. Why not a general 
synodical, or inter-synodical, organization? 

In line with such a project at the convention of 1818 of 
the Ministerium of Pennsylvania it was 


Resolved,...... that the Synod thinks it were desirable if the various 
5 Peschau, 15. 


6 Even those who had gone out into the new Ohio Synod were 
carried in that year on the roll. 


148 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Evangelical Lutheran Synods in the United States were to stand in 
some way or another in closer connection with each other, and that 
the venerable Ministerium be charged to consider this matter, to pre- 
pare a plan for a closer union, if the venerable Ministerium deem it 
advisable, and to see to it that this union, if it be desirable, be 
brought about, if possible.* 


At the Ministerial Meeting of the same convention it was 
resolved, 


That the officers of the Synod shall contribute a corresponding com- 
mittee, to bring about, wherever practicable, a union with the other 
Evangelical Lutheran Synods in the United States.$ 


The Ministerium met in Trinity week, 1819, and among 
the letters presented on the opening day, Monday, were two, 
one from Gottlieb Shober of North Carolina and one from 
Dr. Quitman of New York, expressing a desire for a closer 
union of the Lutheran Synods in the United States. Imme- 
diately upon receipt of such encouragement from two lead- 
ing men of two other synods, a committee of four preachers 
and three laymen from the Synod, and Gottlieb Shober, who 
was present as the representative of the Synod of North 
Carolina, was appointed to consider the matter of such a 
union, and as soon as possible draft a plan for that pur- 
pose. On Wednesday the committee reported but it was 


7 Doe. Hist., 517; Verhandlungen, 1818: 13. For the whole mat- 
ter see Early, op. cit. 

8 Doc. Hist., 522; Verhandlungen, 1818: 18. 

9 Doc. Hist., 528; Verhandlungen, 1819:6 & 7; Schmucker, “Ex- 
tracts from My Lectures on the History of the General Synod,” 
Manuscript, “At the meeting of the Penna. Synod above referred to, 
the Revd. Mr. G. Shober, a venerable minister of our Church in N. 
Carolina, appeared as delegate for the express purpose of proposing 
and urging the formation of a General Union among our Synods. 
That zealous and respected father in Christ, who has since gone to 
his rest, had prepared the outlines of a plan which was read before 
the Synod very much resembling the constitution of the General As- 
sembly of the Presbyterian Church. This was submitted by him to 
the Synod, and formed the basis of the discussion on the subject. 
(Note—No. 1. It was referred to a committee consisting of Revd. 
Shober, Dr. Fred. Dan. Schaeffer, Dr. Danl. Kurtz, Revd. G. Lochman, 
and Dr. Endress, with the lay delegates, Messrs. Damuth, Keller, 
Schorr.) Several days of fraternal deliberation and discussion took 
place, in which having ourselves been present, we can testify that the 


of the Lutheran Church in America 149 


resolved to postpone the matter until Thursday’. On 
Thursday it was taken up and upon vote the results were 
“forty two for the General Synod, and eight against the 
same.” It was then resolved that the report be revised 
after which 600 copies were to be printed and a copy sent 
to each preacher and each congregation, and 50 copies to 
Shober for distribution in North Carolina. This report, 
as revised, was known as the “Plan-Entwurf zu einer Cen- 
tral- Verbindung der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche in 
den Vereinigten Staaten von Nord-Amerika.’’'? It is in or- 
der to study this “Plan-Entwurf”’ in detail. 


THE “PLAN-ENWTURF” OF 1819. 


The committee in presenting the ‘“‘Plan” took occasion to 
say that the Evangelical Lutheran Church had spread itself 
over a great part of the United States and had organized 
bodies known as" 


Synods, or, as others call it, Ministeriums, in order to keep the bond 
of love and unity, and amicably to settle any differences that might 
arise. 


But the number of those bodies had so increased that there 
was danger of bringing divisions and departures “from the 
end and object hitherto pursued in common by said church,” 
Therefore 


it appears to be the almost universal wish of the existing Synods or 
Ministeriums, that a fraternal union of the whole Evangelical Lu- 


spirit of brotherly love most visibly reigned. The so-called ‘“Plan- 
Entwurf,’ i. e., ‘Sketch of a Plan,’ was adopted by a vote of 42 to 8. 
In this ‘Plan,’ the strongest features of the outline presented by 
Revd. Shober are softened down almost into Congregationalism.” 

LO) 3Do0cs Hist os7: 

11 Ibid., 538. 

12 Baltimore, 1819. An original copy in the Lutheran Historical 
Bly was consulted, also a translation of the same in Doc. Hist., 
41-4, 

18 All quotations are taken from the translation as in Doc. Hist., 


150 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


theran Church in these United States may be effected by means of a 
central organization. 


Then followed the ‘‘Plan” in eleven sections. 

Section 1 sets forth the proposed name of the union of 
synods as “The General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran. 
Church in the United States of North America.” Section 2 
suggested that this body be composed of delegates from all 
existing Synods and from such as might be organized in 
the future, with the ratio of representation fixed according: 
to an appended schedule but “‘for every two clerical one lay 
delegate.” But every Synod was to have the right of rep- 
resentation by at least one clerical and one lay delegate. 
All delegates accepted were to have equal privileges and 
votes as members of the body. Each Synod was allowed 
discretion in the manner of electing delegates, as well as 
the mode of meeting their expenses. Section 3 provided: 
that each convention should elect its own officers who should. 
serve until the next convention; time and place of the next 
meeting were to be fixed by the convention, in “such man-. 
ner, however, that at least one General Synod is held in 
three years.” 

Section 4 sets forth that 


the General Synod has the exclusive right with the concurrence of a 
majority of the particular synods to introduce new books for general 
use in the public church service as well as to make improvements in 
the Liturgy, 


but until this was done books in use at that time should be: 
continued. But the General Synod has no power to make 
or demand any change whatever in the doctrines (Glauben-. 
slehren) hitherto received among us. Section 5 provides 
the method for creating new synods. Until the recognition 
of the General Synod had been given to a newly-organized 
body it was not to be recognized by any constituent minis-. 
terium nor should its ordination be deemed valid. In Section 
6, Synods, whether already existing or to be formed, were 
never to be hindered “in the appointing and ordaining 


of the Lutheran Church in America 151 


oof ministers at their own discretion within their own 
bounds.” They were also to “retain forever’ the 
privilege of controlling affairs within their own dis- 
tricts, provided; that. in the control they did not 
come in conflict “with these fundamental articles of 
general organization.” But the General Synod was given 
the jurisdiction over internal rules and regulations of the 
Synods on appeal. By Section 7 the General Synod was au- 
thorized “‘by and with the approval of a majority of the 
particular Synods or Ministeriums proper, to fix grades in 
the ministry which are to be generally recognized.” Until 
this was done, the grades in force in the particular Minis- 
teriums were to continue. Section 8 provides that if di- 
vision or dissension as to doctrine or discipline should arise 
in any Ministerium, such questions were to be brought be- 
fore the General Synod “only when a full third of the mem- 
bers of such Ministerium present appeal to it for that pur- 
pose.” Section 9 gave to every minister who was not sat- 
isfied with the decision of his Synod the right of appeal to 
the General Synod. Section 10 allowed the continuance of 
the old practice of the Synods of granting to visiting min- 
isters from other Synods a voice and vote. But it was laid 
down that no minister should go from one Synod to another 
as a full member unless he be formally and honorably dis- 
missed. Section 11 provided that this plan was to be sent 
to “all Evangelical Synods or Ministeriums in these United 
States as a proposal for a general organization.” Then, 
those bodies which adopted it “at least in its spirit and sub- 
stance,” were to notify the President of the Ministerium of 
Pennsylvania as soon as possible. If it were found that 
three-fourths of such bodies had adopted it, the President 
was to make that fact known to such as had adopted it, at 
the same time designating where and when the first General 
Synod was to be held. The adopting bodies were then to 
elect their delegates who were to make up the General Synod 
and draw up a constitution, “as much as possible, however, 
in agreement with the above-mentioned ‘Plan-Entwurf.’ ” 


152 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


An explanatory note was attached in which the terms 
“Synod” with the addition “or Ministerium” were set forth 
as standing for “Synod or Ministerium according to the 
name in use by the bodies of which the Proposed Plan ac- 
tually speaks.” But when the term ‘“Ministerium” was 
used alone it was to denote ‘“‘a body consisting of preachers 
alone, which might use the right of ordination.” Attesta- 
tion was made by the President and the Secretary of the 
Ministerium of Pennsylvania as having adopted “in sub- 
stance” by that body. 

At the convention of 1820—May 28 ff.—of the Minister- 
ium of Pennsylvania, after “much had been said for and 
against the General Synod,’’"* three resolutions were adopted 
which laid down the following: first, that in the opinion of 
the Synod a General Synod ought to be organized ‘“‘in ac- 
cordance with the spirit of the “Plan-Entwurf,”’ but with 
the provision that the Constitution for the same as proposed 
in the 11th section of the ‘‘Plan” be submitted to the Synods 
for decision, instead of being finally decided upon by the 
delegates of these Synods in General Synod; second, that the 
delegates to a General Synod, however, be allowed to formu- 
late such a Constitution; third, “that when three-fourths 
of the existing Synods (including this Synod) accept the 
Constitution, it shall be considered as binding.” On the 
next day the Synod proceeded to the election of delegates to 
the General Synod, and, according to the ‘“‘Plan,”’ chose six 
clerical delegates’® and three lay-delegates. It was further 
resolved that the Convention of the General Synod should be 
held on the fourth Sunday of the succeeding October at 
Hagerstown, Md., and that if any of the elected delegates 
could not be present they should have the right to appoint 
substitutes.*® 

The North Carolina Synod elected"? delegates, as did also 


14 Doc. Hist., 553 & 4. 

15 As this was before the withdrawal to form the Synod of Mary- 
land and Virginia, the Synod had more than eighty-six ministers om 
its roll. It was therefore entitled to the maximum representation. 

16 Doc. Hist., 556 & 7. 

17 See above, page 101 ff. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 153 


the Ministerium of New York,'* and the Synod of Maryland 
and Virginia which had been organized less than two weeks 
previous to this meeting of the General Synod. The dele- 
gates—deputies—from these several Synods met in Hagers- 
town, Md., on the 22nd of October, 1820 and remained in 
session until the 24th. The Synods of Ohio and Tennessee 
were not represented. In all eleven ministers and four lay- 
men were in attendance, representing four synodical bod- 
ies.1° 

The chief, indeed the only real, business properly before 
the meeting was the framing and the adoption of a Consti- 
tution. In this connection it was decided that the conven- 
tion should vote by Synods, each Synod having one vote. 
Deliberation began on Monday morning and throughout 
that day and the next it was continued until a Constitution 
“in all its parts unanimously agreed to”’ was produced which 
was then to be laid before the several synods for ‘‘considera- 
tion, adoption and confirmation.” 


STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GENERAL SYNOD. 


The “Plan-Entwurf” for a general organization, as pre- 
pared and proposed by the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, 
furnished the essential basis for the Constitution.”® It can 


18 See above, pages 83, 4. 

19 “Proceedings of the convention for the Formation of the Gen- 
eral Synod,” contained in the original protocol entitled, “Proceedings 
of the General Synod of the Evan. Luth. Church in the United States 
(of North-America.)” This is in the Lutheran Historical Society 
and has been used continuously in the study of the General Synod 
contained here. 

20 “The Constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran General Synod 
in the United States,” as contained in the protocol of the first conven- 
tion, and as printed, has been used here. But The Constitution of 
the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United 
States of North America, as printed in the Minutes of the Proceed- 
ings of the Fifth General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church 
in the United States, (1829) pages 41-44, has been used for purposes 
of comparison and to show certain slight changes made by amend- 
ment by the synods and accepted by the General Synod, before final 
adoption. S. S. Schmucker’s personal copy of the Constitution as 
contained in the protocol of the first convention, will be followed here. 
In this copy Schmucker has made notations in his own hand. 


154 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


be seen that the delegates followed the ‘‘Plan” very closely, 
although certain differences between the two can be easily 
discerned. 

In the preamble the Lutheran theory of the polity of the 
church is set forth, in that it is said that 


Jesus Christ, the Supreme Head of His Church, having prescribed no 
special Regulations concerning Church government, and every sec- 
tional portion of the Church being left at full liberty to make such 
regulations to that effect, as may be most adapted to its situation 
and circumstances, 


the deputies of the four district synodical bodies adopt cer- 
tain fundamental articles which then follow. Article I 
fixes the “style and title of this Convention” as “The Evan- 
gelical Lutheran General Synod of the United States of 
North America.” Article II provides that 


this General Synod shall consist of the Deputies of the several Evan- 
gelical Synodical Conventions in the United States, who may join 
themselves thereunto and be duly acknowledged as members thereof, 


in the ratio appended, with an equal number of ministers 
and laymen.*' All deputies are to enjoy equal rights with 
all others, except as later provided, and each Synod may 
choose its Deputies as it thinks fit, and shall pay the ex- 
penses of the same “until the General Synod shall have es- 
tablished for itself a treasury from which the future ex- 
penses may be discharged.” Article III specifies the busi- 
ness of the General Synod under eight sections. By Sec- 
tion I, it shall examine the proceedings of the several dis- 
trict bodies in order to obtain some knowledge of the exist- 
ing state and condition of the Church. Therefore, the 
Synods shall transmit as many copies of their proceedings 
as there shall be members of the General Synod. Section 
II converts the General Synod into a joint committee of the 
synods with regard to all Books and Writings proposed for 
public use in the church, to act in the following manner, (1) 


21 The “Plan” provided for twice as many ministers as laymen. 
See above, page 150 


of the Lutheran Church in America 155 


it shall examine and pronounce upon all books and writings 
proposed by the synods for public use. Therefore no Synod, 
or Ministerium, in the connection might set forth any book 
or writing of the kind above mentioned, for public use in 
the church, without having previously transmitted a full 
and complete copy thereof to the General Synod for “advice, 
counsel, or opinion.” (2) the General Synod, whenever it 
deem it proper or necessary, might propose to the Synods 
new books, etc. Every such proposal shall be duly con- 
sidered and if the decision is not favorable to adoption, 


it is hoped, that the reasons of such opinion will be transmitted to the 
next convention of the General Synod, in order that the same may be 
entered on their journal; 


(3) but the General Synod was never to be allowed 


to possess, or arrogate unto itself, ‘the power of prescribing among 
us uniform ceremonies of religion for every part of the Church’; or 
to introduce such alterations in matters appertaining to the faith, or 
to the mode of publishing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, (the Son of God, 
and ground of our faith and hope) as might in any way tend to 
burden the consciences of the brethren in Christ. 


Section III lays down the same conditions and method for 
organizing new synods as was proposed in Article 5 of the 
“Plan,” except that there is no mention made of the refusal 
to recognize the validity of ordination of an unauthorized 
synod. In Section IV the General Synod is given advisory 
power with respect to the grades in the Ministry, as well 
as concerning rules and regulations for Synods to care for 
possible disputes between them. Section V sets forth that 
the “General Synod shall not be looked upon as a Tribunal 
of Appeal.” However, it was given advisory power in the 
following matters: (1) it might give advice or opinion when 
complaints were brought by “‘whole Synods, Ministeriums, 
Congregations, or individual Ministers, concerning doctrine 
or discipline.” But care was to be taken that consciences 
of the Ministers be not burdened and that no one be op- 
pressed by differences of opinion; (2) the General Synod 


156 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


might give an opinion in the case of a difference submitted 
in a friendly way; (3) when differences between Synods are 
to be considered, the votes are by Synods, but the referring 
Synods were to have no vote. Section VI authorizes the 
General Synod to devise plans for various kinds of institu- 
tions, for the aid of poor ministers, and widows and orphans 
of ministers, and to carry such plans into effect. Section 
VII makes possible the institution and creation of a treas- 
ury “for the effectual advancement of its purposes.” Sec- 
tion VIII lays upon the General Synod the duty and obliga- 
tion of striving to prevent schisms, to be regardful of the 
times, to notice every “casual rise and progress of unity 
of sentiment among Christians in general, of whatever kind 
or denomination,” so that general concord and unity might 
not pass by neglected. 

Article IV specifies the officers of the General Synod who 
were to continue in office until the next succeeding conven- 
tion. No limit is set for the eligibility of persons for the 
office of secretary or treasurer, but no one is to be elected 
president more than two conventions in succession, and the 
same person could not be thereafter elected for the two 
immediately following conventions. Section I details the 
duties and rights of the President. Section II gives the 
same for the Secretary. In both cases the usual functions 
incident to these offices in common parliamentary practice 
are prescribed with some modifications to meet this special 
case. Section III provides for the filling of vacancies in 
the interim of conventions. Section IV prescribes the du- 
ties of the Treasurer. 

Article V lays down the course of business to be con- 
ducted at the convention, under ten heads. The organiza- 
tion of the convention, with the certification of delegates, 
and the noting of a quorum, together with assignment of 
places of entertainment, come first in order. Election of 
officers then follows, and then the proceedings of the for- 
mer convention are read. Then “follow the several por- 
tions of business according to Article 3d, section for sec- 


of the Lutheran Church in America 157 


tion.” Following this “other mixed motions may be made,” 
and after this, in conclusion, 


the General Synod shall appoint, by ballot the time and place of the 
next convention, observing at all times, however, that one convention 
at least, be held every three years.??2 


Article VI makes provision for the enactment of by-laws, 
specifying in limitation only that they ‘do not contradict 
the spirit of the constitution.” Article VII required that 


no alterations may be made except by the consent of two-thirds of the 
Synods attached to this convention; notice of the intended alteration 
having been given to the said Synods at least two years previous to 
the final adoption thereof. 


This constitution was agreed to 24 October, 1820, by all of 
the clerical and lay-delegates in attendance upon the meet- 
ing. 

After the constitution had been completed and adopted 
the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: First, 


That in case one or more of the Synods shall not be satisfied with 
every part of this constitution and make known to the chairman of 
this convention a conditional adoption thereof, the chairman shall 
communicate the circumstances to the other Synods and the General 
Synod may in the next convention deliberate thereon, and shall in the 
adoption or rejection of the proposed condition, vote by Synods; 


Second, 


That if three of the Synods here represented shall have confirmed this 
constitution the chairman shall give public notice that the next Gen- 
eral Synod convene in Fredericktown in the State of Maryland on the 
third Monday in October, Anno Domini 1821; 


third, the proceedings of the convention, together with the 
constitution, were ordered printed, and the furnishing of 
each minister of all the interested Synods with one German 
and one English copy thereof was ordered to be made; 
fourth, 


22 The General Synod generally met every two years throughout 
its history. 


158 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


That the chairman of this convention address a friendly letter to the 
President of the Synod of Ohio, encouraging him if possible, to pre- 
vail on the said Synod to unite with their brethren in the adoption of 
this constitution; 


fifth, 


That in pursuance of the 6th section of article 3d of this constitution, 
and fondly hoping that the several Synods will confirm the same, 
three committees be appointed to set the business of that section into 
proper train. 


Accordingly there were appointed the following commit- 
tees: (1) to form a Plan for a Seminary of Education; 
(2) to form a Plan of a Missionary Institution; (3) to form 
a Plan in aid of poor Ministers and Ministers’ Widows and 
Orphans. 

Upon the conclusion of this business the convention ap- 
pears to have adjourned. 


THE ATTITUDE OF THE DISTRICT SYNODICAL BODIES OF THE 
LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA TOWARD THE CONSTI- 
TUTION OF THE GENERAL SYNOD, AND TO THE GEN- 
ERAL SYNOD ITSELF, UNDER ANY CONSTITUTION. 


Although representatives of four district Synods agreed 
to the Constitution, as shown above, it was understood that 
the Constitution was not to be considered confirmed, nor 
the General Synod to be authorized, until three of the Syn- 
ods there represented should so vote. Therefore the con- 
stitution, and indeed the whole question of the propriety 
and desirability of a General Synod, had to stand the criti- 
cism of elements not favorable in the various Synods. In- 
asmuch as the value and the prosperity of the General 
Synod depended upon the way in which it was received by 
the total membership of the district Synods, it will be of 
importance now to consider, somewhat in detail, the atti- 
tude of each Synod in this respect. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 159 
THE ATTITUDE OF THE MINISTERIUM OF PENNSYLVANIA. 


At the convention of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, 
June 1821, the delegates appointed at the previous conven- 
tion to represent the Ministerium at the meeting of the del- 
egates of the several Synods for the purpose of drawing up 
a Constitution (Grund-Verfassung,)?* reported that they 
had performed their duty and were ready to lay before the 
Synod, for its acceptance or rejection, the Constitution 
which had been agreed upon. 


On motion, this Constitution, together with the Protocol in which it is 
outlined, was read section by section, and its acceptance was voted 
upon. When the Second Section of the IV. Article was reached, it 
was Resolved, To postpone the further consideration until the after- 
noon. 


In the afternoon, the consideration was continued and 


After each section had been maturely considered and unanimously 
accepted, it was resolved, that the members be asked by name to vote 
for the acceptance or rejection of the whole. 


The result was 67 for acceptance and 6 for rejection.” 
The election of delegates to the meeting which was to be 
held in Fredericktown, Md., in October, 1821, should two 
other Synods confirm the Constitution, was immediately 
held at which five clerical and five lay-delegates were 
chosen.”> To both the clerical and lay-delegates the priv- 
ilege of appointing others, in case they could not go them- 
selves, was granted. Forebodings of a spirit of opposi- 
tion to the establishment of a General Synod are to be seen 
in the letter in which Candidate G. F. Jaeger declares his 
dissatisfaction and that of his congregation with such an 
establishment. It was, however, 


23 Doc; Hist., 581. 

24 Ibid., 581 & 2; Verhandlungen der Deutsch-Evangelisch-Lu- 
therischen Synode von Pennsylvania, 1821: 18 & 19. 

25 The Ministerium had now less than 86 ministers on its roll, 
due to the withdrawal of a number to form the Synod of Maryland 
and Virginia. 


160 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Resolved, That the majority must decide in this matter, and that after 
a decision it is the duty of the minority to yield.2° 


A letter from Messrs. Doering and Wartman, ordained pas- 
tors, expressed the same dissatisfaction both for themselves 
and their congregations.?’ Such opposition was later to 
develop as was sufficient to cause the Ministerium to with- 
draw from the General Synod.?8 


THE ATTITUDE OF THE MINISTERIUM OF NEW YORK. 


At the convention of the Ministerium of New York in 
1819 the President laid before the body the credentials of 
the Rev. J. C. Yager as deputy “from the Lutheran Synod 
of the state of Pennsylvania.’?® These credentials and a 
letter previously received by the President from the Presi- 
dent of the Pennsylvania Synod were read by the Secre- 
tary.*° The President of the Pennsylvania Synod had also 
sent a “certain printed paper, entitled ‘Plan-Entwurf zur 
Vereinigung der Lutherischen Synoden in der Vereinigten 
Staaten,’ which was then read twice and afterward dis- 
cussed at length as to contents and purpose. Whereupon 
it was resolved that a committee consisting of three min- 
isters and two lay-men be appointed to 


consult on the Plan-Entwurf deliberately and report thereon, and, in 
case they approve of the idea expressed in it, they either frame an- 
other plan as substitute, or modify it in such a manner, as to them 
may appear most proper.?*!. 


Later the committee reported and after their report was 
read twice and considerably discussed, it was unanimously 
resolved that it be accepted. The report set forth in sub- 
stance that some of the principles of the Plan were at var- 


26 Doc. Hist., 577. 

27 Ibid., 578. 

28 This will be discussed under a later heading. 

29 Proceedings of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of the State of 
New York, 1819: 5. 

30 Ibid., 6. 

31 For this whole matter, /bid., 8-12. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 161 


iance with the spirit of the constitution of the Ministerium 
of New York and then proceeded to give the outline of the 
“Plan.” Then, the Committee gave as its opinion that 


all the good effects, which the proposed Plan anticipates, may be real- 
ized with less trouble, danger and expense, by a general adoption and 
enforcement of the fourth section in the 9th chapter of the constitu- 
tion of this Ministerium, vide page 31.32 


The committee continues by pointing to this provision of 
the constitution of the New York as 


eminently qualified, to contribute towards the general interest and 
welfare of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in this country; 


and that 


it appears to be the most practical and effectual mode, by which unity 
and concord may be promoted and preserved. 


Therefore the committee recommended, (1) that the 
“Plan” be not accepted; (2) that the adoption of the fourth 
section of the 9th chapter of the constitution of the Min- 
isterium of New York be earnestly recommended to the 
various Synods; (3) that the Ministerium continue to send 
Delegates and receive them according to this constitutional 
provision; ()4 that the Synod annually appoint a commit- 
tee of correspondence, 


who shall according to annual instructions from the Synod, corre- 
spond with like committees of other Lutheran Synods, on such sub- 
jects as may be best calculated to promote the prosperity, the exten- 
sion and happiness of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; 


(5)that the President and Secretary transmit a copy of 
this report and resolutions to the other Synods. Imme- 
diately the committee of correspondence of the previous 
year was continued, and the secretary was instructed to 
secure from other Lutheran Synods data whereby a list of 


32 Turning to the section thus cited, it can be seen that this pro- 
vides for an exchange of Commissioners or Delegates between the 
New York Ministerium and any other Synod who fulfilled the condi- 
tions. 


162 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


the clergymen of the Lutheran Church in the United States 
might be compiled for printing. 

With this attitude expressed toward the idea of a cen- 

tral, or general, synod, it is surprising to find that in Au- 
gust, 1820, after the closing session of the Synod held at 
that time, the ministers agreed to send a delegation to at- 
tend the meeting called for 22 October at Hagerstown, Md., 
“when and where a plan for the formation of a general or 
central Synod should be discussed.’*? This accounts then, 
for the presence of two delegates from the Ministerium of 
New York at the convention in which the Constitution for 
a General Synod was unanimously adopted by the delegates 
present, but which Constitution was to be presented to the 
various Synods for final decision. 
The Ministerium met again in May, 1821, at which conven- 
tion the delegates reported on their mission to the meeting 
just referred to. Their report was adopted and considera- 
tion of the Constitution by the Synod began.** 


After considerable discussion on the whole, and its single parts, the 
individual votes of the ordained ministers and lay delegates being 
taken, the majority were found to be in favour of deferring the result 
of their considerations on the subject, until, having individually a 
copy of the Constitution, they should be enabled to bestow that atten- 
tion on the subject it merited.” 


Thereupon it resolved that as soon as the ministers and ves- 
tries of the congregations of the Ministerium should be fur- 
nished with copies of the Constitution, they should consider 
that same and transmit their decisions to the President 
of the Ministerium “on or before the 15th day of Septem- 
ber next,” in order that the result of the deliberations of 
the Ministerium might be made known to the representa- 
tives of the other Synods to be convened in Frederickstown, 
Md., on the third Monday of October, 1821. The secretary 
was accordingly directed to write to the Secretary of the 


33 Minutes, New York Ministerium, 1820: 9. 
34 Hextracts from the Minutes of the Synod of the Lutheran 
Church in the State of New York, etc., 1821: 8-10. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 163 


General Synod concerning a sufficient number of copies of 
the Constitution.*° 

No delegates from the Ministerium of New York ap- 
peared at the meeting of the delegates from the various 
Synods held in 1821. This is explained by a statement of 
the Secretary at the next convention of the Ministerium— 
August, 1822—that 


few congregations had sent in their declarations concerning the Gen- 
OFA DyHOd sw. and that a majority of the few who had expressed 
an opinion on the subject, had deemed the proposed plan inexpedient 
for the present.?é 


But the Rev. Mr. Lintner later gave notice that 


during the present session he would move for a reconsideration of 
the vote on the subject of the General Synod.37 


At a later session the motion was called up and, after much 
discussion, it was resolved that the President should be 
requested to lay before the next Synod a report as to the 
decisions which he received from the different Church 
Councils—Vestries—on the subject of the proposed union 
with the General Synod.** The “Extracts” from the Min- 
utes of 1823 make no mention of such a report having been 
made and so it is fair to conclude that none was made. The 
General Synod was to have no support from the Minister- 
ium of New York as a body. 


THE ATTITUDE OF THE SYNOD OF NORTH CAROLINA. 


It will be recalled that the invitation from the Pennsyl- 
vania Synod to send a delegate to its convention in 1819 
led the Synod of North Corolina to disregard its constitu- 
tional provision for the date of its annual convention, and 


35 Failure to provide a copy of the Constitution, in both German 
and English, to every minister, was in disregard of a resolution 
passed at the closing session of the general meeting in 1820. 

36 Minutes, New York Ministerium, 1822: 5. 

837 Ibid., 6. 

SS bids 17. 


164 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


to meet earlier in order to elect and send a delegate.*® 
Gottlieb Shober was the delegate chosen and he took an 
important part in the meeting of the Pennsylvania Synod, 
especially in looking toward the formulation of a “Plan” 
for a central synod.t*? When Shober was elected as dele- 
gate the Synod of North Carolina went on record as con- 
sidering the “union of our Church in America,” as “a thing 
very much to be desired,” and it instructed him “if pos- 
sible,” to “favor, in the name of our Synod, such a union.’’** 
However, care appears to have been taken to guard the 
position of the Synod in this respect, inasmuch as a com- 
mittee was appointed to give him “instructions,” and 


He was assured that if a ‘constitution’ of our whole Church should be 
adopted, in accordance with his instructions, then said constitution is 
already hereby adopted by us, but if however, resolutions be adopted 
differing from the ‘instructions’ given, such resolutions must be pre- 
sented to our next Synod for ratification or rejection.*2 


Shober was the only delegate in attendance at the meeting 
of the Pennsylvania Synod from another Lutheran Synod. 

At the convention of the Synod of North Carolina in May, 
1820, Shober presented his report as delegate.*® He said 
that a plan had been agreed upon which had been printed 
and had been long in circulation in the Synod. But he ex- 
plained that the Synod need not adopt it as it did not fully 
agree with the instructions which had been given him by 
the Synod. The question then was, “shall we adopt the 
plan?” This was considered item by item, 


and the necessity of having a central union was admitted even by 
those who were against this plan itself. The plan was adopted by a 
vote of 15 yeas, against 6 nays, that is by more than two-thirds ma- 
jority.*4 


39 See pages 101, 

40 Doc. Hist., 528, “298, 539, 524. 

41 Peschau, 36 

42 Ibid., Bernheim, op. cit., 489: “These instructions were not pub- 
lished in the minutes.’’ 

48 Peschau, 46. 

44 The Henkels were not present and voting. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 165 


Immediately two ministers and two lay-delegates were 
elected to meet with representatives of other Synods 
in October, 1820, to unite with them in framing a Consti- 
tution and in forming a General Synod. The lay-delegates 
did not attend the meeting, but the two ministers did, and 
joined in the unanimous endorsement of the Constitution 
agreed upon to be laid before the Synods.** 

At the conclusion of the North Carolina Synod in 1821 it 
is to be expected deliberation concerning the Constitution 
for a General Synod would be recorded. No record of such 
deliberation is available, but it is well-established that the 
Synod adopted the Constitution and entered heartily in the 
work of developing the new general organization. At the 
convention of the General Synod in 1821 two ministerial 
delegates were present from North Carolina, but the two 
lay-delegates elected were again absent.*® In 1825 Shober 
was elected president of the General Synod. 


THE ATTITUDE OF THE SYNOD OF OHIO. 


The Synod (or Conference) of Ohio was never in connec- 
tion with the General Synod, but inasmuch as the matter of 
such connection was considered by it, and as at least in 
1823 delegates from the Synod were elected to attend the 
convention of the General Synod, it is necessary to study 
briefly its attitude and note the reasons for its persistence 
in the same. 

The “Plan-Entwurf’ having been agreed upon in May, 
1819, it was presented to the Ohio Synod at its meeting at 
Canton August 29 ff., 1819.47 This was accompanied by a 
fraternal letter from the President of the Pennsylvania 
Synod. The “Plan” was 


carefully considered and adopted in the hope that a united body 
would be of greater influences and blessing in the Lord’s kingdom.*® 


45 “Protocol,” General Synod, 1820. 
46 Minutes, General Synod, (1821). 
47 Sheatsley, op. cit., 66. 

48 Ibid., 


166 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


But that there was opposition in the organization to the 
plan is evident from the report of a letter of the Rev. 
Stauch, President of the Synod of Ohio, to the Pennsylvania 
Synod, 


in which he makes known that some members of the Ohio Synod are 
unwilling to accept the (so-called) ‘Plan Entwurf’ for a General 
Synod.49 


At the same session 


A printed paper, in which certain members of the Ohio Synod ex- 
press their doubts and give their reasons why they are unwilling to 
accept the ‘Plan Entwurf.’ 


was presented.°*° 

At the next meeting of the Ohio Synod at Zanesville, Sep- 
tember 16-19, 1820, the “Plan” was discussed again and a 
committee was appointed to bring recommendations before. 
the body.*! The following report was made: 


From the reports of the Synod of New York and the Carolina Synod 
we conclude that the purpose of the ‘Plan’ to form a central synod 
cannot be attained; we therefore move that the resolution adopted at 
Canton be rescinded, and that we allow the matter to rest until we 
have had opportunity to examine the constitution of the central 
synod. If the same then meets our approval we will adopt it, if not,. 
we do not care to involve ourselves further in this matter.®2 


Apparently, then, the Synod had endorsed the project of 
a general organization after the “Plan” in its convention 
of 1819 and had so notified the Synod of Pennsylvania. 
Accordingly, it is easy to understand that “it was much re-- 


49 Doc. Hist., 552. 

50 “Bericht,” Tennessee Synod, 1820: 60-68 is a paper entitled 
“Bedenklichen Ursachen’—proposed by some preachers in Ohio and 
others, setting forth why they will not accept the “Plan-Entwurf” for 
the “so-called” Central Synod. See also Report, Tennessee Synod,. 
1821: 19 & 20. 

51 Sheatsley, op. cit., 66. 

52 The attitude of one member of the Ohio Synod is set forth in a 
letter to Paul Henkel, see Report, Tennessee Conferences, 1821: 10. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 167 


gretted that from the Synod in the State of Ohio the ex- 
pected deputies did not appear.’’®? 

After the constitution had been framed and agreed to by 
the delegates present, one of the resolutions which then 
passed was that ordering the chairman of the convention to 
address a “friendly letter’ to the President of the Synod 
of Ohio, “encouraging him if possible, to prevail on the said 
Synod to unite with their brethren in the adoption of this 
constitution.’’*+ 

In September, 1821, at the Convention of the Synod of 
Ohio at Somerset, Ohio, the President, the Rev. Stauch, read 
the Constitution of the General Synod before the body. 
After each one had had opportunity to express himself, a 
resolution was passed to hold the matter of adoption in 
abeyance for another year, pending further consideration.* 

In October of the same year at the meeting of the Gen- 
eral Synod a letter was read from President Stauch. It 
was resolved that the Rev. Mr. Schmucker—whether father 
or son is not stated—should answer the same and that as 
many copies of the Pastoral Letter and of the minutes of the 
present convention as there were ministers in the Synod of 
Ohio, should be sent to that Synod.** At the convention of 
the Synod of Ohio in 1822 the Constitution of the General 
Synod was again discussed, article by article, and two men 
—J. P. Schmucker, and Steck, Jr.—were elected to go “to 
the next meeting of the Synod and there in love confer with 


53 Proceedings of the Convention for the Formation of the Gen- 
eral Synod (1820):2. And 8S. S. Schmucker said—Manuscript of his 
“Lectures on the History of the General Synod’’—that “The Synod of 
Ohio was also expected to send delegates, but they did not appear, 
and although I was present at the meeting also, I do not recollect 
whether the reason was assigned or known to the convention. None 
appears on their minutes; and as my collection of Ohio Minutes be- 
gins with the year 1821, I am unable to say what action that body 
took on the subject; although I well recollect that their principal 
ministers were at first known to be favorable to the union, and were 
expected to unite in the establishment of the General Synod.” 

54 Proceedings, 1820: 4. 

55 Sheatsley, op. cit., 66 & 7; Verrichtungen der vierten General- 
Conferenz, Der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Prediger in Ohio, etce., 
1821: 5 & 6; Schmucker, “Lectures,” says the same. 

56 Minutes, 1821: 11. 


168 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


the members of the same.’*’ But the report of the meet- 
ing of the Synod of Ohio®* shows that as a result of a letter 
presented to the Synod from the Senior Steck in which a 
report is made that the Synod of Pennsylvania will not send. 
delegates at that time to the convention of the General 
Synod, the action of 1822 authorizing the delegates to at- 
tend the General Synod was rescinded and Schmucker was 
notified of the action. While it is true that the Minutes 
of the General Synod of 1823°° list Schmucker and Steck 
“as delegates” from the Synod of Ohio there is no evidence 
to show that they were actually in attendance, but had 
merely been known to have been elected. 

After the action rescinding the resolution to send dele- 
gates to the General Synod there is no record of any later 
action on the part of the Synod of Ohio toward the General 
Synod. That good feeling existed between the Synod of 
Ohio and other Lutheran Synods is evident from a resolu- 
tion passed in 1824 to send 15 copies of the Minutes of 
the Synod of that year to every other Synod.® It was, 
however, too much to expect a daughter-synod to join in a 
body which its mother-synod had agitated for and then de- 
serted. The Synod of Ohio existed alone for a time until 
it became the nucleus of a new general body which con- 
tinues to the present day as “The Evangelical Lutheran 
Joint Synod of Ohio and Other States.” 


THE ATTITUDE OF THE SYNOD OF TENNESSEE. 


Attention will need to be given to the attitude of the 
Synod of Tennesee to the General Synod, indeed to the 
whole idea of a general organization, although this body 


57 Verrichtungen, 1822: 5 & 6; Sheatsley, op. cit., 67; Schmucker, 
“Lectures,” says, “two delegates (were) appointed to attend the 
meeting of the next General Synod and report on the proceedings, 
after which the question of permanent union with said body should 
be finally decided.”’ 

58 Verrichtungen, 1823: 5. 

59 Page 3. 

60 Verrichtungen, 1824: 7. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 169 


was never in any organic relation to the general body. 
However, its strictures and attacks cannot be ignored, and 
its criticisms serve to bring out in relief the nature and 
character of the General Synod, pointing out both its strong 
points and its weak. The group of churches held together 
in a loose organization from 1820 to 1824 as a ‘“‘Confer- 
ence,” became a “Synod” thereafter, adopting a new con- 
stitution in 1828. But the group was not at first recog- 
nized as a Lutheran Synodical body. In writing at a later 
date, S. S. Schmucker still would say,* “Our whole church 
was in 1821 embraced in the Synods of Ohio, of N. York, 
Pennsylvania, Maryland and Va. and N. Carolina and the 
adjacent States.” But the ‘Address of the General Synod 
to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States’ 
in 1823 notes the “German Ev. Luth. Conference of Ten- 
nessee,”’ although there is no evidence that it was looked 
upon as a body to be approached and urged to unite with 
the General Synod as was the case with the Synods of Ohio 
and New York. 

As has been stated above—page 112—it was not with- 
out great significance that the occasion for the break which 
led to the formation of the Tennessee Synod should have 
come as a result of a change in date of the convention of 
the Synod of North Carolina. This change was made to 
make possible the election and presence of a delegate to the 
annual convention of the Synod of Pennsylvania where a 
Plan of Union for district synods was to be deliberated 
upon. That the founders of the Tennessee Synod were vig- 
orous in their opposition, and most consistent in this, to 
the resultant General Synod will now be set forth in detail. 

In connection with the “Bericht” of the first Conference 
of the protestants against the course of the Synod of North 
Carolina, there was printed®* under the title “Vom Plan- 
Entwurf” the text of the “Plan” and notes or observations 
criticizing it. The first observation is in connection with 


61 “Lectures.” 
62 Minutes, 1823: 9 ff. 
63 “Bericht,”’ 1820: 48-59. 


170 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


the introductory statement which sets forth that the “Plan” 
is offered to promote love and unity among the Lutheran 
Synods, and sets forth that strife and unrest exist and that 
much more can be expected if the “Plan” is carried out. 
As to the name “The General Synod of the Evangelical- 
Lutheran Church,” as set forth in the First Article, objec- 
tion is made to the use of “Evangelical-Lutheran” because, 
it is claimed, the remaining articles show that the “Plan” 
is opposed to the doctrine of the Lutheran Church. In crit- 
icism of the Second Article, the danger of the hegemony 
of the Pennsylvania Synod; the danger of a Seminary, and 
the injustice of the ratio of two to one of ministerial and 
lay delegates, are pointed out. As to the Fourth Article, 
objection is made to the claim of the General Synod to have 
exclusive right to introduce new books for public worship, 
and fear is expressed that Luther’s Catechism might be cast 
out, while the General Synod could reject the articles of 
faith, for neither the Augsburg Confession nor the Bible 
was designated at the basis, nor even so much as mentioned 
in the whole “Plan.” Against Article V, which gave to the 
General Synod the sole right of judging of qualifications of 
district synods, a strong opposition is made. Article Sixth, 
in which the powers of synods are subject to the funda- 
mental articles of the general organization, brings forth the 
observation, “Accordingly, one has as much liberty as the 
rope allows.” With reference to Article VII, in which the 
General Synod is to be given the part of fixing the grades 
of the ministry, the objectors say that after a while, 


Catechist, Candidate, Deacon and Pastor will no longer be enough; 
who knows but that something higher will be required, such as Bishop, 
Archbishop, Cardinal, and even Pope. 


As to Articles VIII and IX, which have to do with the Gen- 
eral Synod as a court of appeal, objection is made that the 
features of a temporal government are being introduced, 
while in criticism of Article X the reader is referred to the 
observations by some preachers in Ohio which is ap- 


of the Lutheran Church in America 171 


pended.** As a final general observation the danger of fur- 
ther assumption of power and inclusion is pointed out, un- 
til finally a general National-Church is established which 
would change the Constitution of the United States and de- 
feat the principle of religious liberty. Thus, it is clear that 
the Tennessee Synod from the first took a strong stand 
against the General Synod as a body which it held to be 
hierarchial in its polity, as well as un-Lutheran in its doc- 
trine. 

Whether the claim that the objection of the Tennessee 
Synod were solely instrumental in causing certain changes 
from the original plan is valid or not, the fact remains that 
changes were made to satisfy that body®> which were in 
vain. At its convention in 1821 a committee was appointed 
to draw up the remaining objections.°° This committtee 
made its report, which was appended to the Report of 
1821.°7 It is important to study this Report in detail. 


STUDY OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE AGAINST THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE GENERAL SYNOD. 


The first objection is against the broad statement in the 
original draft of the preamble which said, 


Whereas Jesus Christ, the great head of His Church, hath not given 
her any particular prescriptions how church government should be 
regulated, she therefore enjoys the privilege in all her departments to 
make such regulations, as appear best, agreeable to situation and 
circumstances. 


However, this was toned down by virtue of a change sug- 
gested to the district synods in 1825,°* of which sugges- 
tion it was reported at the next convention the district 


64 This follows, pages 60 ff. 

65 But other synodical bodies made objections. See this work, 
in loco. 

66° Report, 1821: 7. 

67 Pages 13-36. 

68 Minutes of the General Synod, 1825: 8. 


172 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Synods had unanimously approved so that the preamble 
was to read,°® 


Jesus Christ, the Supreme Head of His Church, having prescribed no 
entire specific directory for government and discipline, and every 
sectional church being left at full liberty, etc.7° 


But even this milder statement would have been objected 
to, inasmuch as the lack of regulation by Christ is denied, 
scripture passages being cited to back up the contention, 
and the whole idea of a General Synod is held to be uncom- 
manded, unsanctioned, and without the guidance of the 
Holy Spirit. The government of the General Synod by a 
majority of votes is looked upon as particularly dangerous 
and contrary to the alleged commands of Christ. Further, 
they object to the confidence expressed that the General 
Synod will promote love, harmony, unity and peace, and 
claim rather that divisions, contentions and confusion have 
arisen. In a note David Henkel, “clerk of the committee,” 
gives a lengthy explanation that other Christian denomina- 
tions who have general synods have disputes and factions. 
The Lutheran Church has never had trouble until this was 
proposed. He then gives a short account of the origin and 
development of the Lutheran Church in America and shows 
how district synodical bodies arose, how they are sufficient 
in purpose and had a standard of unity in the Augsburg 
Confession, being free from any superior tribunal, “except 
that of Christ.” 

Objection is also made to Article I thus, ‘‘this body in- 
deed, may call itself Evang. Lutheran, & yet not be such.” 
For the constitution nowhere says anything about the 
standards of Lutheranism, not even the Bible. Therefore 
the General Synod has unlimited power by this constitution 
to promote any discipline it pleases. If it be claimed that 
the usual standards will be observed or that “so many pious 
and learned men would not aim at such horrid things,” it 


69 Minutes, 1827: 6. 
70 Paes the Constitution as published in 1829, Minutes, 
1829: 41. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 173 


may be said that it is not reasonable that the Christian 
Church should put her confidence in man, or make flesh her 
refuge. If the framers had been zealous advocates of the 
Lutheran doctrine they would have been careful to insert 
a clause compelling the General Synod, “always to act ac- 
cording to our standard books.”  MBut it is an easy thing 
to prove that some of the framers have “openly denied some 
of the important doctrines of the Augsburg confession of 
faith and Luther’s catechism.” 

Against Article II objection is made to the statement that 
the body may consist of deputies from the different evan- 
gelical connections. Therefore it may consist of deputies 
from all denominations who call themselves “Evangelical.” 
While this seems to be a misreading of the thought of the 
framers, in the constitution printed in 1829 the reading 
is changed to say that the “General Synod shall consist of 
the Deputies from the several Evangelical Luth. Synodical 
Conventions in the United States.” 

Article III, which consists of eight Sections, is objected 
to at length and in detail. No objection is made to Section 
I which provides for the examination of the Minutes of the 
District Synods at the General Synod. But against Sec- 
tion II in which the General Synod is specified to act as a 
joint committee of the particular Synods and Ministeries 
(Ministeriums?) with respect to all proposed manuscripts 
and books for the public use in churches, objection is made 
to the three sub-sections. Sub-section 1 which gives the 
General Synod the right of examination of all manuscripts 
and books proposed by the district synods for use in the 
churches, of whatever kind, in order that it might give its 
advice and admonition, and which provides that Synods 
are forbidden to publish a new book for public use without 
first having handed a complete copy thereof to the General 
Synod, and received its sentiments, admonitions, or advice, 
is objected to as arrogating the power to prescribe the cere- 
monies in the church.”! This is in opposition to Article VII 


71 Did the fact that the Henkels had a publishing house and sup- 
plied books for the church have any significance? 


174 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


of the Augsburg Confession. Sermons, etc., ought also be 
required to be submitted before being preached, for if one 
should publish a book with erroneous doctrines, he would 
also preach them. Inasmuch as among the enumerated 
books “‘confessions of faith” are included, it appears to be 
conclusive proof that the General Synod intends to depart 
from the accepted Lutheran confession. Sub-section 2 
gives the General Synod the right to propose to the Synods 
new books for general or particular public use. The Syn- 
ods shall observe the proposals, and if they do not approve 
they shall send to the General Synod the reasons so that 
these may be inserted in the minutes of the body. Objec- 
tion is made that if a Synod does not approve it will be 
ridiculed; its reasons or objections are not promised to be 
received or adopted. Sub-section 3 forbids the General 
Synod to prescribe uniform ceremonies, to introduce alter- 
ations, either in things respecting the faith, or in things 
which respect the manner of publishing the gospel of Christ, 
which might oppress the conscience of the brethren. To 
this it is answered, 


no power needs or can be given to this General Synod to prescribe 
uniform ceremonies—they have already grasped it, when they suffer 
no book, for public worship which contains ceremonies, to be intro- 
duced without their advice and approbation! 


Alteration in matters of faith may not be made, yet this 
clause does not forbid their being omitted. 

Section III, which provides for the method of creating 
new district synods which may become recognized as such 
is objected to, first, on the ground that it will enable the 
Synod of Pennsylvania to break itself into a number of 
Synods and thus get control of all other Synods; second, 
the Synods of the General Synod who now arrogate to them- 
selves the power of giving permission to form Synods, had 
no such grants for their own formation; they grew up un- 
authorized and until they change their status, let them find 
no fault with others who would do the same. 

Of Section IV, which points out how uniformity in the 


of the Lutheran Church in America 175 


grades of the ministry is to be preserved, ‘“‘not being very 
interesting, nothing more needs to be said on this head.” 
Section V specifies that the General Synod shall not be 
viewed as a “peculiar tribunal of appeals,’ but allows ex- 
ceptions to this rule as set forth in three sub-sections. 
Against Sub-section 1 objection is made at length. This 
sub-section sets forth that the General Synod may “im- 
part their sentiments or advice’? when complaints with re- 
spect to doctrine or church-discipline are “‘tabled by whole 
Synods, or congregations, or individual ministers.” But 
the General Synod is warned to take good care “‘not to bur- 
den the consciences of ministers with human traditions, 
and not to afflict any person with respect to difference of 
opinion.” The Committee contends that ‘“‘the very institu- 
tion of the General Synod is nothing but human laws and 
traditions, nowhere commanded by Christ nor his apostles.” 
They appeal to the introduction of the Constitution in which 
it is said that Christ has left no prescriptions how the 
church shall be governed, and draw therefrom the conclu- 
sion that since he has not done so, he has not commanded 
the General Synod and it is therefore “nothing but human 
tradition.” They make much of the statement that the 
General Synod shall not burden the consciences of minis- 
ters with human laws or traditions, and point out that the 
General Synod is “nothing but human laws and traditions.” 
At this point a lengthy foot-note, inserted by the ‘“‘clerk of 
the committee,” vigorously explains that the unity of the 
Lutheran Church, according to the Seventh Article of the 
Augsburg Confession, does not consist in external forms or 
ceremonies, or government established by men, but solely 
in the right preaching of the Gospel and the proper admin- 
istration of the Sacraments. The General Synod is con- 
trary to this Article, and is an invention of man. “True 
christianity is thereby blended with human laws and policy 
—the true lineage of popery.” The General Synod is a 
plant which has not been planted by the Heavenly Father ; 
“it was planted by a majority of votes.” Can it reasonably 


176 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


be required of Christians, to foster a plant which God did 
not plant? The report of the Committee continues with a 
recollection of how “our Saviour upbraided the Pharisees 
for their human laws and traditions they imposed upon the 
common people;” and calls attention to the fact that by 
these means popery was established. Synods should be 
careful not to impose human traditions upon the church, 
but should remember that they do not assemble “for the 
purpose of making laws for the church, but only to devise 
means to execute those already made by Christ.” In the 
second place, the stipulation “that no person shall be af- 
flicted with respect to difference of opinion,” is criticised 
as an opening whereby those who would introduce all man- 
ner of false doctrines can become active and be safe from 
discipline. As to Sub-sections 2 & 3 the Committee briefly 
says of them, 


In the beginning of this section, it is said, that the General Synod is 
not to be viewed as a tribunal of appeals; yet in these clauses appeals 
are received and finally decided! What an inconsistency! 


Section VI provides for the formulation of plans for gen- 
eral institutions for theological education, support of mis- 
sionaries, and the support of ministers’ widows, etc. Sec- 
tion VII allows the creation of a treasury “for the purpose 
of executing their designs.” Objection is first made to the 
paying of missionaries out of a general fund. The conse- 
erated will preach and labor without the promise of any- 
thing. The promise is that they will be supported; that 
is enough. Hirelings will be encouraged. 


Was the mission of the primitive apostles conducted in this manner? 
Had Christ established a general treasury out of which he hired his 
apostles by the month or year?...... Is it not enough that we have 
his promise? 


In the second place, objection is made to support of min- 
isters’ widows, et., from a general fund. 


Are the families of ministers a nobler race, than other people, so that 
extraordinary provisions must be made for them, in preference to 


of the Lutheran Church in America ake i 


others? Would it not be better, if every congregation had a fund of 
its own to support their needy at home? 


Further, 


pious ministers accustom their families to honest labour, so that they 
may know how to support themselves when they need it; 


too many ministers now indulge their children in pride, 
vanity, etc.; ministers and their wives are proud and vain, 
etc. 


The farmers and mechanics may labour hard to procure money, to 
fill this treasury; of which, though, their widows and orphans in their 
straits could expect no assistance. Have we any nobility in America, 
etc.? 


Begging and pleading would be much in practice to fill this 
treasury, and if it be said that no one is compelled to give, 
it should be remembered that those who would not contrib- 
ute freely would be scorned and reproved and would finally 
be obliged to contribute. In any case, the civil govern- 
ment has provided for such widows and orphans who do not 
find benefactors. 

Against Section VIII, which looks to the prevention of 
schisms and the promotion of unity among Christians in 
general, it is briefly charged that this is “a desire to wnite 
with all denominations.” 

The remaining Articles in the Constitution are not cited 
and objected to but a “Conclusion” follows in which the 
hope is expressed that 


the friends of the General Synod will not view us as enemies; because 
we freely spend our opinion with respect to their designs. We would 
freely join in with them, if we could do it with a good conscience. 


It is charged that the clerical state would be highly exalted, 
and that while the people would not be burdened and co- 
erced, life would be more comfortable for the ministers, 
their widows and their orphans. But the church did not 
appear powerful at first, neither had it wealth and power. 
And 


178 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


wherever a connection is found extremely numerous, wealthy, grand 
and exercising great authority like unto a civil government, it is not 
the Church of Jesus. 


They do not expect finally to prevent the establishment of 
this General Synod. They believe, rather, that the estab- 
lishment of “General Synods” are preparing the way for 
Antichrist. 


Antichrist will not, nor cannot get into power, without a general 
union, which is not effected by a divine harmony of godly doctrines; 
but by common temporal interests, and the power of a majority. 


But they consider that they have a duty to instruct the 
people who are not wilfully blind. The Millenium is com- 
ing; but Antichrist must come first, and his kingdom is 
“reared under a good garb; if it were not the case, no per- 
son would be deceived.” At the next convention (1822) 
the Synod approved the objections as reported by the com- 
mittee. This may therefore be accepted as the studied and 
official opinion and attitude of the Synod of Tennessee to 
the General Synod in the days of the latter’s organization. 
That this opinion and attitude was not merely transitory 
is evident from a certificate, dated 5 September, 1826, and 
signed by ten ministers of the Synod—only two ministers 
were absent when this was signed—convened in synodical 
meeting which set forth,” 


Whereas there is a report in circulation, both verbally and in print, 
that some of us, members of the Tennessee conferences, should have 
said: that we now regard the General Synod as a useful institution; 
that we disapprove the turbulent conduct of a certain member of 
this body; that we (i. e. some of us) pledged ourselves to leave this 
body, if we cannot succeed in having said expelled; we deem it our 
duty hereby to inform the public, that we are unanimously agreed in 
viewing the general Synod as an anti-Lutheran institution, and 
highly disapprove it, and are the longer, the more confirmed in this 


72 Minutes, 1822: 18. 
73 Report, 1826:6 & 7. See Minutes, General Synod, 1825: 13, 
for the statement against which the accompanying attack is made. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 179 


opinion; and that we know of no member among us, whose conduct 
is turbulent, or immoral, ete. 


This may be set down as the attitude of the Tennessee 
Synod to the General Synod to the end of the period of in- 
terest here, 1829. Nothing of an official character appears 
to have been done in this respect later than 1826. But from 
other sources it can be established that the individuals were 
active in their opposition to the general body and continued 
vigorously their championship of what they considered to 
be the cause of true Lutheranism. However, as the inter- 
est here is only in synodical attitudes no further account 
of these will be taken, and the study of the Tennessee Synod 
and its attitude will be closed. The Synod grew between 
the date of its organization and 1829 and much of this 
growth may be attributed to the appeal which its hostility 
to a general organization made in certain quarters. It 
courted the Synod of Ohio and tried to cultivate closer re- 
lations and a better understanding with the other Synods 
which either stood aloof from the General Synod or early 
withdrew from it. But no better understanding was at- 
tained and no close relationship with any other body was 
established by the Tennessee Synod until many years later. 
It stood alone, but it stood firm, fighting the battle of the 
faith as this was known to it. 


THE ATTITUDE OF THE SYNOD OF MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA. 


Attention is now in order to be directed to the district 
synod which was the only synodical body to maintain an un- 
broken membership in the General Synod from the date 
of its organization until the merger in 1918. This contin- 
ued membership was but one evidence of a deep feeling of 
devotion and enthusiasm for the general organization. 

It is entirely likely that the peaceful exodus of certain 
members of the Synod of Pennsylvania, and the latter’s 


74 Minutes of the various conventions, passim. 
75 Ibid. 


180 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


cheerful permission for the same, is to be understood only 
as a result of the assurance that a General Synod would be 
formed.*® In any case, the Synod of Maryland and Vir- 
ginia became one of the heartiest advocates of the General 
Synod and so great was its service for that body that it has 
been said, “the Maryland Synod saved the General 
Synod.”’*? 

“The clergy and lay-delegates of the Evangelical Luth- 
eran congregations in Maryland and Virginia, to organize 
a new synod,” came together for this purpose on 11 October, 
1820.78 On the next day it was 


On motion, Resolved, That Dr. Kurtz and Mr. Reck, or any two of the 
officers elected, be directed to attend the next General Synod, as rep- 
resentatives of this Synod, in conjunction with Mr. G. Shryock.7® 


At this meeting, held October 22 ff., 1820, the Constitution 
was agreed to. This was introduced at the next conven- 
tion of the Maryland Synod, held September 2 ff., 1821. 


The constitution of the General Synod was read; the question was 
taken upon each article separately, and finally upon the whole consti- 
tution, which was unanimously assented to.8° 


Thus with apparently no difficulty or delay the Maryland 
Synod entered into organic relation with the General Synod. 
The relation which developed between the two bodies is 
thus summed up:*! 


Under such circumstances it was to be expected that the Maryland 
Synod would for many years play a leading part in the activities of 
the General Synod. Such proved to be the case, as we have seen. Of 
the first thirteen conventions of that body ten were held on the terri- 
tory of the Maryland Synod. And throughout the hundred years of 
the history of the General Synod more than one-third of her presid- 





76 Details of this are given ante, pages 128, 9. 
; ue Ae History of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Mary- 
and, 46. 

78 Proceedings, 1820: 3. 

79 Ibid, 4. 

80 Proceedings, 1821: 13. 

81 Wentz, op. cit., 162 & 3. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 181 


ing officers were elected from among the delegates of the Maryland 
Synod. There was every reason why the relations between the Mary- 
land Synod and the General Synod should have been so uniformly 
happy and cordial as they always were. 


Having noted the attitudes of the various Lutheran Syn- 
odical bodies toward the General Synod in the years of its 
conception and establishment, attention will now be given 
to a detailed consideration of the development of the Gen- 
eral Synod up to 1829, with an attempt to evaluate the or- 
ganization with respect to its significance and importance, 
within the prescribed limits, to the development of the 
Lutheran Church in the United States in general, and to 
its particular synodical polity in particular. 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENERAL SYNOD, 1821-5. 


The first regular meeting of the General Synod under the 
Constitution was held in Fredericktown, Md., on October 
21, 22, 23, 1821.8 There were present ten delegates, rep- 
resenting three district Synods, while an epidemic of disease 
and an error in the advertisement of the date by the Secre- 
tary probably accounted for the fact that eight other dele- 
gates did not appear.*® The Synods represented were Penn- 
sylvania, North Carolina, and Maryland and Virginia. 

The body immediately gave evidence®* of a purpose to 
fulfill the object of its organization, and to consider and ad- 
vise concerning matters of general interest and arrange- 
ment. It appointed a committee to compose an English 
catechism; it recommended to the several Synods not to 


82 §S. S. Schmucker in his Lectures,” has written, “The first regu- 
lar meeting of the General Synod, ete.,”’ of which, however, he has 
marked out the words ‘“‘meeting of the,’”’ so that, as revised, his state- 
ment is, “The first regular General Synod.” Later in the “Lectures” 
he refers to “the meeting of the next General Synod.”’ However, the 
“Minutes” of the General Synod for 1821 speak of the “meeting of 
the Evangelical Lutheran General Synod,” while those of 1823 are the 
“Minutes of the Second General Synod.” A conclusion on this mat- 
ter will be attempted under a later heading—page 224, below. 

83 Minutes, 1821; Schmucker, “Lectures.” 

84 Minutes, 1821: passim. 


182 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


retain the orders of deacons and candidates any longer than 
the exigency of the times required; it considered a matter 
of difference between a minister and a Synod; it gavea 
hearty negative answer to the question of the validity of 
ordination performed by individual Preachers without the 
consent of their Ministerium; it received a report on the 
establishment of a Theological Seminary, and recommended 
the degree of preparation necessary for entrance upon the 
study of Theology, as well as a plan for directing such study 
until a Seminary should be established. The report of the 
committee, appointed in 1820, .to form a plan for a mis- 
sionary institution was read but consideration of the same 
was deferred until the next meeting. However, it was 
recommended to the several Synods that they send mission- 
aries into parts of the country in most need of them. 
While, it is true, nothing of great importance was finally 
accomplished at this meeting, it is very clear that vigor and 
purpose to serve the ends of its organization were demon- 
strated. 

S. S. Schmucker, the ardent promoter of the General 
Synod, wrote later that there was “a very flattering pros- 
pect at this time of the union of the whole Lutheran church 
in the General Synod.’*> This was based on the knowledge 
that the Synod of Ohio had elected delegates to attend the 
meeting in 1823 which he believed would result in a per- 
manent union with the General Synod. It is not clear that 
he was entirely justified in the hope that the whole church 
would be united then, for he says, “for if the Ohio Synod: 
united there was then no other remaining.” However, 
there was the Synod of New York, and also the Tennessee 
group. 


THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PENNSYLVANIA MINISTERIUM. 
But, Schmucker must then go on to say, 
About this time, an event occurred which to all appearances was ex-- 


85 “Lectures.” 


of the Lutheran Church in America 183 


pected to put an end to the General Synod, and blast the hopes which 
had been cherished for the improvement of our Zion. Owing to vari- 
ous disturbances and opposition excited by political demagogues, by 
infidels and by a few renegade Germans from Europe, the Synod of 
Pennsylvania at a meeting held at Lebanon May 25th-29th in 1823, 
passed resolutions to relinquish the idea of sustaining a General 
Synod. 


‘This was indeed a blow, and when the General Synod con- 
vened in Fredericktown, Md., in October, 1823, °° repre- 
sentatives from only two recognized Synods were present, 
with delegates from the West Pennsylvania Conference of 
the Ministerium of Pennsylvania—see below, page 187. It 
is true that among the delegates are listed two from the 
Synod of Ohio who, as shown above—page 168—were 
not present.*? 

The life of the General Synod was at stake and its friends 
clearly recognized the fact. As stated above, the Synod of 
Pennsylvania had voted to withdraw. In keeping with 
what Schmucker has given as the reason for this unexpected 
action which threatened to be fatal to the life of the new 
organization, there was the opposition of the country 
churches of the Synod of Pennsylvania to a general organ- 
ization and to certain of its projects.** There had been op- 
position on the part of individuals ever since the project 
was first broached, but no concerted movement calculated 
to take the Synod from the general organization seems ap- 
parent until 1823. At the convention of the Pennsylvania 
Synod held as stated above the matter came up for final 
decision.*® The opposition on the part of the country 
churches was based entirely upon what they thought were 


86 Minutes, 18238. 

87 Is it possible that representation from Ohio was published for 
the purpose of covering the fact that a number less than that origin- 
ally set as a minimum number of Synods necessary to establish the 
General Synod—Resolution No. 2 of those passed at the meeting in 
1820—was present in 1823? 

88 Jacobs, op. cit., 360, & 361. 

89 Verhandlungen, 1823; 14-17; Early, op. cit., 176-8. The quo- 
tations which follow are taken from Early, and compared with the 
German in the Verhandlungen. 





184 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


valid reasons of a practical nature. A parallel line of 
development was going on in the German Reformed Church 
in Pennsylvania and one Carl Gock appeared to embody the 
opposition opinion and to stand forth as spokesman. He 
appears to have made an impression.” 

At all events at the convention of the Ministerium of 
Pennsylvania in 1823 protests were presented from con- 
gregations in Lehigh County against the organization of 
a General Synod and the founding of a Theological Sem- 
inary, in which the Ministerium was asked to rescind its 
former resolutions referring thereto and to allow affairs to 
move on as they did before the resolutions had been passed. 
It was therefore resolved to take up for consideration at 
that time the matters here brought forth. As a result a 
long statement to which were appended five resolutions was 
proposed, thoroughly discussed and passed on roll call by 
a vote of 72 to 9. Three delegates present declined to vote 
and three are recorded as absent. 

The statement begins with an assertion that love® has 
always been the aim of the body. To enlarge this bond of 
love they desired to enter “upon a union of hearts with 
others of our brethren in Jesus Christ, and called it a 
GENERAL SYNOD.” Further, desiring to see the min- 
istry held in honor and of more effect, they hoped to see an 
institution established in which men would be fitted for the 
ministery which “institution we called a THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY.” Further, they looked forward to bringing 
about a closer union with their German Evangelical Prot- 
estant brethren, and ‘called it AN ALLIANCE OF THE 
GERMAN PROTESTANT CHURCH.” In all this, “Our 
effort, our desire, our aim, was charity (‘Liebe.’)” But 
they are misjudged; all their aims are grossly misjudged 
and misunderstood. 


It is palpable even that dissatisfaction, trouble and discord have 


90 Jacobs, op. cit., 360. 
91 “Inebe.” Early translates this as “charity,” likely following 
after the rendering of the King James Version of the Bible. ; 


of the Lutheran Church in America 185 


arisen which cannot be removed, as long as the causes and objects of 
these unjust suspicions be not taken away. 


So, then, since love is still the aim, and as it is in danger of 
Suffering greatly from the misunderstandings, and since 
without peace, unity, and love, no “consolation in Christ,” 
or peace, either in the whole body or in individual congre- 
gations, is possible, and since 


the Synod is not all inclined to enter upon any measure in the con- 
gregations connected with it without their full and hearty approval, 
therefore for the sake of preserving and restoring universal love and 
harmony, be it Resolved 


first, that no more delegates be sent to the General Synod; 
second, that no steps be taken for the establishment of a 
Theological Seminary; third, “that we will simply antici- 
pate the future union with the Reformed Church;” fourth, 
that the above resolutions remain in force until the congre- 
gations coming to a true construction of the former honest 
purposes for themselves rescind them; and fifth, that the 
President of the Synod inform the various Synods which 
have united with this one in forming the General Synod of 
the adoption of these resolutions as soon as possible. 
Thus the astonishing thing was done. 


Instead of nobly braving the opposition of ignorance, prejudice and 
irreligion, and taking measures to circulate better information among 
their churches; they resolved to abandon the General Synod, etc.°? 


This is a harsh judgment but it is difficult to see why it is 
not justified. A mother had abandoned her child! At 
least the ardent supporters of the General Synod so consid- 
ered.°> Then, too, some of the warmest proponents of the 
idea were no longer members of the Ministerium but had 
gone out three years before to form the Synod of Maryland 
and Virginia. But members who were firm believers in 
the utility and righteousness of the General Synod and all 


92 Schmucker, “Lectures.” 
93 Minutes, General Synod, 1828: 11 & 12. 


186 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


that it stood for concurred in the proposition. The general 
conclusion was that the General Synod was doomed. 


How fully this impression prevailed may be seen from the fact, that 
the members of the Pennsylvania Synod, who resided west of the 
Susquehanna, some of whom were very warm friends of the General 
Synod, after the passage of the above resolutions at Lebanon, con- 
sulted together about holding a special conference, and considering 
the General Synod as defunct, appointed their Conference on the very 
day which had been fixed for the meeting of the General Synod in the 
ensuing fall.%4 


It was indeed a crisis, as Schmucker believed. 


It was evident that if this attempt to establish a General Synod 
should be abandoned, nothing like it could be attempted for many 
years: and our Church continue in her former helpless and distracted 
condition. 


SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO SAVE THE GENERAL SYNOD. 


Therefore, Schmucker became convinced that a desper- 
ate effort to sustain the General Synod, no matter what the 
odds, must be made. 


I therefore immediately wrote to the principal brethren, friendly to 
the cause; and in a few days determined to visit these brethren per- 
sonally and devise plans to sustain the General Synod. With this 
view I started from home about a week after the news of the reces- 
sion of the Pennsylvania Synod reached me, and visited the principal 
brethren. 


At Frederick, Md., in conjunction with D. F. Schaeffer, let- 
ters were written to all the ministers of the different Synods 
who had been elected delegates to the next General Synod, 
beseeching them not to regard the course of the Pennsyl- 
vania Synod, assuring them that the General Synod would 
be sustained, and begging them to attend the meeting to 
which they had been elected. He then went to Gettysburg, 


94 Schmucker, “Lectures.” 
95 Ibid. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 187 


met the Rev. Herbst whom he took with him to York, and 
there meeting with his father, formed the following agree- 
ment—of which he says he still has the original manuscript 
and which has been consulted in this study—which is as 
follows :%° 


At a meeting in York July 15th, 1823, present Schmucker, Sen.; 
Herbst, Junr.; and Schmucker, Junr. it was agreed that (1) Revd. 
Schmucker should publish the time for the meeting of the Pennsylva- 
nia Special Conference, on the first Sunday in October—(2) Re- 
solved that Revd. S. & H. shall use their influence at the Special Con- 
ference, to have the following resolutions passed:7 (1) ‘Beschlossen 
das wir von nutzbarkeit der General Synode ueberzeigt sind.’ (2) 
‘Das wir diese unsere Gesinnung in christlicher Liebe der naechste 
Synode zu Carlisle vorlegen.’ (3) ‘Das zwei Glieder dieser Confer- 
ence ernannt werden, den General Synode zu Friedrichstadt beizu- 
wohnen und diese unsere Gesinnung mitzutheilen.’ (3) Resolved that 
the Revd. S. Jun. promise and guarantee the presence of one or more 
members of the Md. & Va. Synod at the session of the Penna. Sp. Syn. 
who shall endeavor to promote the interests of the General Synod 
and form plans for that purpose in conjunction with the brethren of 
Pennsylvania. 


The special Conference was represented in the General 
Synod in 1823. This representation helped to swell the 
very feeble representation from two bona-fide Synods to 
seven ministers and two lay-delegates.%® ) 

Truly the fortunes and hopes of the General Synod were 


96 Using Schmucker’s Ms. and the Verhandlungen der Special- 
Conferenz; Gehalten zu Yorktaun, auf den 6ten und 7ten October 
1823, (the latter for comparison, quoting from former). 

97 It is impossible to read the ms. at this point, so the “Lectures” 
will be followed. The printed and final form of these resolutions dif- 
fers in phrasing and in the fact that these are somewhat extended in 
order to make the meaning clear, but all three agree in the essential 
points. The printed form has four resolutions, the fourth being the 
appointment of Schmucker, Sen. and Herbst, Jr., as delegates. 

98 Minutes, General Synod, 1823; Schmucker, “Lectures.” The 
Minutes say that letters were “laid on the table, from which it ap- 
peared that the following brethren were elected as delegates from the 
different district Synods,”’ and then give a list of nine ministers and 
five lay-delegates. Schmucker was present and, from his experience, 
gives a list of those actually present. These he enumerates and the 
total was as given above. 


188 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


at the lowest point. But “a representation of a majority of 
the Synods in connection with the General Synod” were 
claimed to be present, and “the brethren, in reliance on the 
guidance of the Holy Spirirt, proceeded to business.” The 
body was cheered by the deputation of the Special Con- 
ference of the members of the Synod of Pennsylvania who 
resided west of the Susquehanna, and resolved that it was 
highly gratified by the presence of the deputation, who 
brought the minutes of the Special Conference in which 
were resolutions in support of the General Synod. 


“THE FORMULA FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF 
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.” 


The Synod noticed the withdrawal of the Synod of Penn- 
sylvania from its connection, expressed its deepest regret 
but claimed to entertain the highest confidence in their 
brethren of Pennsylvania, and exhibited trust that they 
would without delay resume the connection. In the inter- 
est of the advancement of the Lutheran Church in general 
a “Committee of Foreign Correspondence” was elected. 
But, by far the most important act of the convention was 
that in reference to the “Formula for the Government and 
Discipline of the Lutheran Church in Maryland and Vir- 
ginia.” Concerning this it was unanimously resolved that 


this Synod regard the principles of said Formula of Government and 
discipline as fully accordant with Scripture and the dictates of sound 
reason; that they highly approve of its adoption, and that the Sec- 
retary shall communicate to said Synod the alterations recommended 
by the General Synod.99 


This “Formula,” as altered slightly in 1827°° and in this 
form, became the official directory of the General Synod for 
the government of individual congregations and a part of its 


99 Details of the adoption and alteration of this “Formula” are 
given above, pages 131, 2. 
100 Minutes, General Synod, 1827; 9 & 10. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 189 


system of Lutheran Church government.'’*' The original 
draft was largely the work of S. S. Schmucker.'”” 

After the meeting of the General Synod and the subse- 
quent meeting of the Synod of Maryland and Virginia, the 
latter ordered 1,000 copies of the Formula in both languages 
to be printed,’ after consideration of the amendments pro- 
posed by the General Synod. While the General Synod 
appears never officially to have printed this Formula, there 
is no question that it held it to be officially received. It is 
in order now to study the Formula in detail and note its 
contents.1 


THE CONTENTS OF THE ‘‘FORMULA.” 


All of the earlier editions had an introductory section 
which explained and defended the Formula which followed. 
The Formula as published in 1855 did not have this section, 
need for which there was none at that late date. Chapter 
I contains “Preliminary Principles,’ in seven sections, in 
which the value but insufficiency of “natural religion” is set 
forth and the revelation through the Scriptures is recog- 
nized. Section Four expresses the belief in liberty of con- 
science and the free exercise of private judgment in mat- 
ters of religion, as natural and inalienable rights of men. 
But as order is necessary in every associated body, and as 
Jesus Christ has left no entire and specific form of Gov- 
ernment and Discipline for His Church, every individual 
church should adopt such regulations as shall be most sat- 


101 Minutes, 1829; 29, footnote. 

102 The draft used here is endorsed by “S. S. S.” as the “original 
autograph from which the present generally received Formula of the 
Lutheran Church was printed.” A printed copy of this endorsed in 
Schmucker’s hand viz., “Printed at the individual expense of S. S. 
Schmucker and D. F. Schaeffer for convenience of the General 
Synod,” has been used and this was the first printed copy of the 
original draft. 

103 Minutes, Maryland & Virginia Synod, 1828: 11 & 12. 

104 Schmucker, Lutheran Manual, 239 ff. This was published in 
1855, but even at that late date the Formula as adopted with the 
amendments of 1827, was the same as in 1829. 


190 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


isfactory from every viewpoint. But as men differ in some 
of their views as to doctrine and discipline, yet ought to be 
in associations, care must be taken that those of too great 
divergence should not associate but only those of similar 
views. To that end requirements for membership and ser- 
vice in the church, most accordant with the precepts and 
spirit of the Bible, ought to be made. Section Seven says 
that upon such a broad basis of principles was the Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Church founded immediately after the 
Reformation. 


Adhering to the same principles, the Church in America is governed 
by three Judicatories: the Council of each individual Church, the Dis- 
trict Synods, consisting of all the clergy and an equal number of lay- 
men from a particular district of country, and one General Synod 
formed by representatives from all the different Synods of the Lu- 
theran Church. The ratio of clerical and lay representatives is de- 
termined in the Constitution of the General Synod; and the powers 
of this body are only those of an Advisory Council. 


Chapter II is entitled “Of the Church.” Part I is concerned 
with ‘the Invisible Church,’’ which, under these sections, 
is said to be the collective body of all who are in a state of 
grace; a spiritual society; a universal society, “its members 
not being confined to any particular nation or religious de- 
nomination.” Part II is concerned with the “External or 
Visible Church.” Under eight sections this is said to be 
the body of those who profess the Christian religion, the 
head of which is Jesus Christ, who has “‘neither abandoned 
his church nor appointed any vicar in his stead.” Chris- 
tians living together have since the days of the Apostles 
formed themselves into societies for the attainment of their 
objects. ‘“‘And every society participates in the duties of 
the whole church.” Every such society and the visible 
church at large has a duty to have the word and sacraments 
administered in their purity; to support the ministering 
pastors properly; to provide for the perpetuation of a reg- 
ular ministry and for the propagation of the Gospel. The 
church has a further duty to watch over the purity and 


of the Lutheran Church in America 191 


faithfulness of its members. The jurisdiction of the church 
is purely spiritual; its power is purely declarative, by what- 
ever judicatory it is exercised. Membership in the visible 
church is not optional; it is the duty of every one to belong 
as a faithful member to it. 

Chapter III deals with the officers of the church. It 
takes up first the office of the pastor and on this it sets forth 
that the clerical office is of divine and perpetual establish- 
ment, and persons filling the office are of equal rank. Their 
duties are to expound the Word of God, to conduct the pub- 
lic worship, to administer the sacraments, to admonish men 
of their duties, and in every way to edify the Church of 
Christ. They are amenable to the Synod to which they be- 
long and that Synod is the final tribunal except where an 
appeal is taken to the General Synod. Ministers are for- 
bidden to grant privileges to members of other congrega- 
tions which would be denied to them by their own pastors. 
Ministers shall in their lives present an example of true 
Christian deportment, but if any be guilty of vice, a method 
of procedure is outlined. In the second place the offices of 
elders and deacons are taken up. These are elected by the 
members of the church as their agents. Elders are devoted 
to spiritual service in the assistance of the pastors; the 
deacons to temporal service. “The elders and deacons are 
representatives of the whole church.” All persons elected 
to these offices shall be properly installed. Congregations 
which have had trustees are permitted to retain them and 
continue to them such privileges as are deemed expedient. 

Chapter IV is entitled “Of the Church Council.” Under 
thirteen sections the duties of the Council, the rules for its 
procedure, etc., are set down. 


The church council is the lowest judiciary of the Church, consist- 
ing of the pastor or pastors and all the elders and deacons of a par- 
ticular church. 


Chapter V considers church members. The duties, priv- 
ileges, and right of appeal to Synod of church members are 
set down. Chapter VI deals with elections. In this the 


192 The Development of the Synodicai Polity 


rules for fair and proper elections of all congregational 
representatives are detailed. Chapter VII is entitled, “Of 
Prayer Meetings, etc.” In all copies of the Formula printed 
prior to 1829 (which have been consulted here) the ideas 
set forth in Section Seven have been included in an “Ap- 
pendix.” But regardless of the form, the same general 
matters are included. Prayer-meetings are recommended, 
as is daily worship in the family. Sponsors should be only 
such persons as are members of the church, and permission 
to preach in the churches should be obtained upon consent 
of the pastor and the church-council of the church con- 
cerned. 

It is very evident from the above that there is set down 
here, primarily, a theoretical system upon which the church 
is to be organized in a practical way. However, there are 
also some practical stipulations made which are for the or- 
ganization and conduct of congregations. 

All this is evidence that the Lutheran Church in the 
United States was becoming organized in a more formal 
way. In this connection Schmucker was most active and 
interested. He believed that until the Church had clearly 
developed formal statements of principles and theories it 
would not be possible for it to be most efficiently organized 
and administered. 


THE BPEVELOPMENT OF THE GENERAL SYNOD AS A RESULT OF 
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE WEST PENNSYLVANIA SYNOD. 


When the General Synod convened again in 1825 an im- 
portant step had been taken in its behalf. The West Penn- 
sylvania Synod had been organized. *%* Three Synods 
were then bona fide constituents of the General Synod and 
delegates were present from all of them. The most import- 
ant transaction of the convention was the consideration and 
adoption of a plan for the establishment of a theological 


105 For details of the organization, see above, pages 138-41. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 193 


seminary.’** It will be recalled that at the convention of 
1820 a committee had been appointed to consider the estab- 
lishment of such a seminary but that in 1821 this committee 
reported that “on account of the present pressure of the 
times, the establishment of a Theological Seminary may be 
very justly deferred, for several years.’*°’ Four years had 
now passed and those who had looked upon the General 
Synod as an agency whereby the better and more efficient 
education of ministers might be promoted were now active 
in the promotion of their interest. At the convention of 
1825 after the plan for the establishment of a Seminary had 
been adopted, S. S. Schmucker was elected the Professor. 
Other arrangements were completed at this convention look- 
ing to the early establishment of the institution, which in- 
deed was successfully established at Gettysburg the next 
year./°8 

At the convention in 1825 it was proposed to the different 
synods in connection with the General Synod to strike out in 
the preamble of the Constitution of the General Synod, the 
words “No special regulations,” and to insert in lieu 
thereof, “no entire specific directory for government and 
discipline.” In accordance with Section 2 of Article III of 
the Constitution, a committee was appointed to prepare a 
Hymn-Book, Liturgy, and a Collection of Prayers, in the 
English language, for the use of the church, to report at the 
next convention. Another committee was appointed to 
publish, “forthwith,” on the part of the Synod, the transla- 
tion of Luther’s Small Catechism, offered to the Synod by a 
committee appointed at the previous convention.! 

At the time of adjournment the body 


Resolved, That any ommission of business, which was to have been 


106 Minutes of the Proceedings, etc., 1825. 

107 Minutes, 1821: 9. 

108 A detailed study of the Seminary has been prepared by A. R. 
Wentz, as a contribution to the celebration of the 100th anniversary 
of its founding in September, 1826. 

109 This committee had been appointed in 1823 to examine the 
materials for the catechism which had been prepared by a committee 
appointed in 1821. See Minutes, 1821: 5; 1828: 5. 


194 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


acted upon, or any indispensible correction or alteration, to give force 
to the resolutions aforesaid, be submitted to the conscientious deci- 
sion of the officers. 

Thus was provision made for a continued functioning, how- 
ever slight, of the body between the conventions. 

The General Synod convened next at Gettysburg 26 Octo- 
ber, 1827.1.° Concerning the decision of the different 
Synods on the subject of the alteration of the Preamble of 
the Constitution of the body which was recommended at the 
last convention, it was found that the Synods unanimously 
had adopted the alteration, and the President therefore pro- 
nounced the Constitution as altered to read, 

Jesus Christ, the Supreme head of His Church, having prescribed no 
entire specific directory for government and discipline, and every 
sectional [‘section of his church,’ as per Constitution as printed in 
Minutes, 1829:41.] church being left at full liberty, &c. 

This was calculated to meet certain objections against the 
General Synod. 

The Committee appointed at the previous convention to 
prepare a new Hymn-Book reported that their work was 
ready for the press and Synod authorized their procedure 
with the matter. The same committee reported that the 
Liturgy was not ready and leave to report thereon at the 
next meeting of the body was allowed. Then it was re- 
solved that this Committee report a Constitution for the 
government of district Synods'"! to be recommended to the 
several synods connected with this body. The delegates of 
the West Pennsylvania Synod reported that their Synod 
had adopted the Formula of Government and Discipline 
recommended by the General Synod,'"? but that they wished 


110 Minutes of the Proceedings, 1827. 

111 That S. S. Schmucker was chiefly responsible for this synodi- 
cal constitution is evident from the following: “In 1827 he 
[Schmucker] was directed to prepare the Constitution for Synods, 
which, adopted in 1829, completes the Formula. This little Formula 
was probably the most important, influential and enduring work of 
his life.”,—B. M. Schmucker, Pennsylvania College Book, 155. 

112 This was the Formula drawn up by the Synod of Maryland 
and Virginia and sanctioned by the General Synod, with slight altera- 
tions, in 1828, all of which is described in detail above. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 195 


to add certain clauses which they now submitted to this 
body. These additions were unanimously approved of by 
the General Synod and became a permanent part of the 
Formula.* 

Announcement was made that the Synod of South Caro- 
lina which had been organized in 1824 had expressed a de- 
sire to be received into connection with the General Synod 
but supposed that their intention to establish a theological 
seminary would prove an obstacle to their reception. The 
secretary was instructed to inform the Synod of South 
Carolina that such would not be an obstacle, provided that 
it be done in conformity with Article III, Section 6, of the 
Constitution of the General Synod. 

Amendment to the Constitution of the General Synod, 
merely the changing of a few words in order to avoid mis- 
understanding by well-meaning persons, is the first item of 
business at the fifth convention of the General Synod which 
met October, 1829'** to challenge attention here. A com- 
mittee was appointed to take this matter in hand and this 
Committee later reported as follows: 


That for the sake of perspicuity and to obviate misconstructions, it 
is recommended to the different Synods to adopt the following amend- 
ments—after Evangelical, Article 2, part 1, insert Lutheran. To 
Article 1, Sec. 5, [should be Article III, Section 5, Sub-section 1.] 
add ‘in order that the blessed opportunities to promote concord and 
unity, and the interests of the Redeemer’s kingdom may not pass by 
neglected and unavailing.’ Art. 3, Sec. 6, add after ‘orphans of’ 
poor. 


The committee appointed at the General Synod of 1827 to 
draft a Constitution for the different Synods, united in the 
General Synod, made its report and after much discussion, 
and some amendment, it was ‘‘Resolved, That it be, and it is, 
hereby recommended to the different Synods, united in the 
General Synod, to adopt this Constitution for their govern- 


113 Minutes, 1827:9 & 10; Lutheran Manual, 247, 251, 253. 
114 Minutes, etc., 1829. . 


196 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


ment.” It was further resolved that 250 copies of the same 
be printed.'"® 


STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR SYNODS ADOPTED BY THE 
GENERAL SYNOD, IN 1829, AND RECOMMENDED TO THE 
DISTRICT SYNODS. 


Chapter VIII is entitled “Of Synods.” This is elaborated 
under fourteen sections. Section I claims ‘“apostolical” 
authority for the custom of ‘‘an occasional meeting of dif- 
ferent individual churches, for the purpose of consultation 
and mutual encouragement,” and says that this custom the 
Lutheran Church has retained under “the name of Confer- 
ence, Synod and General Synod.” According to Section II, 
“A synod consists of all the ministers and licensed candi- 
dates, and an equal number of lay-delegates, within a cer- 
tain district.” By Section III it is specified that the num- 
ber of lay-votes ‘‘can’’ never exceed that of the ordained 
clergymen and licentiates. If a lay-delegate be present 
from a district from which there is no minister present, he 
shall have seat and voice, but no vote. Section IV lays upon 
the Synod the duty of seeing that the rules of government 
and discipline prescribed in the Formula are observed by 
all the congregations and ministers within its bounds; of 
receiving appeals from decisions of church-councils and of 
Special Conferences, and acting upon them; of examining 
and deciding on all charges against ministers and licenti- 
ates, that of heterodoxy alone being excepted; of forming 
and changing ministerial districts; of attending to any busi- 
ness relating to the churches which might be brought be- 
fore it; of providing supplies for destitute congregations, 


115 This Constitution was also printed as a supplement to the 
Minutes of 1829, pages 29-40, and this edition has been used here as 
the basis for study. As the Formula of Government and Discipline, 
having seven chapters, was considered as the first part of the “one 
entire system of Lutheran Church government’—see Minutes, 1829, 
29, footnote—the chapters are numbered in continuation, and the 
Constitution of Synods contains Chapts. Eight to Twenty, inclusive. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 197 


and of devising and executing all suitable measures for the 
promotion of piety and the general prosperity of the 
Church, not otherwise provided for in the Formula. 

For the carrying out of the above the Synod and Minis- 
terium has power—Section V—to cite to appear before it 
any church-member within its bounds, and to endeavor to 
obtain other witnesses when need arises. Section VI pro- 
vides that if any congregation, hitherto in connection with 
the Synod, should refuse to obey either the provisions of 
this Formula or the resolutions of the Synod, it shall be ex- 
cluded from the Synod during the time of its refusal, and 
no other Synod, nor any Lutheran minister or licentiate, 
shall take charge of it without the permission of the Presi- 
dent, provided that if the charter of a congregation be at 
variance with the provisions of this Formula, the charter 
shall have precedence in the matters in conflict. Section 
VII sets down the method of uniting with the Synod within 
whose bounds it is on the part of a congregation. This is 
by adopting this Formula and making some annual contri- 
bution toward the expenses of the Synod. Section VIII 
specifies that at least one meeting of the Synod shall be held 
each year, at a time and place to be determined upon. Sec- 
tion IX requires that no minister or licentiate shall be ab- 
sent without a most urgent reason, and even necessary ab- 
sences should be apologized for in writing. Violation of 
this section shall be dealt with by the President. Section X 
advises that all written papers intended for the Synod or 
Ministerium should be addressed to the President. Section 
XI lays upon the minister of the place in which Synod is 
held the duty of endeavoring to provide entertainment for 
all official attendants upon the sessions. Section XII calls 
upon the members to endeavor to assemble upon the even- 
ing preceding the day appointed. Section XIII provides 
that worship shall be held as often during the convention as 
may be convenient. Section XIV admits ministers ‘“‘in 
good standing in other Synods, or in any sister churches,” 
as advisory members. 


198 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Chapter IX is entitled, “Officers of the Synod.” Sections 
I and II contain general provisions among which are those 
requiring an anual election of officers—President, Secretary 
and Treasurer—which officers must be from among the or- 
dained ministers of the Synod. The same persons are not 
eligible for more than three successive years. Sections III 
to XII contain provisions as to the President. He performs 
the duties of a presiding officer and his privileges and duties 
in this respect are detailed. Further, 


It is an important part of his duty to give counsel to every member 
of the Synod when he deems it expedient, and particularly to ad- 
monish and advise every erring brother. 


Sections XIII to XVIII contain the provisions relative to 
the Secretary. The usual duties attendant upon this office 
in deliberative bodies are specified in this connection. Sec- 
tions XIX and XX contain provisions with respect to the 
Treasurer and are those usually in effect in connection with 
that office. 

Chapter X is entitled “Other Members of a Synod.” Sec- 
tion I lays upon “every minister, licentiate and lay-delegate 
of every Synod,” the duty of not only observing the Consti- 
tution himself, but also of, so far as is in his power, seeing 
that it is obeyed by all connected with the Synod. Sections 
II to X detail the duties and privileges of “Ordained Minis- 
ters and Licentiates or Candidates.” Distinction is noticed 
between the two ranks in relation to freedom of restraint. 
Ordained ministers are entirely free; Licentiates are under 
restrictions. General provisions to be observed by both 
ranks are laid down. Among these are the duty of circulat- 
ing books proposed by the Synod and General Synod; of 
non-interference with the congregations of others. They 
have the right of honorable dismissal from one Synod to an- 
other. Section XI specifies the position of “Lay-Dele- 
gates.” Each of these shall have equal rights with the min- 
isters in all business belonging to the Synod. Chapter XI 
recommends an “Order of Business,” under eighteen sec- 


of the Lutheran Church in America 199 


tions. Chapter XII outlines a “Process against a Minister.” 
Chapter XIII advises a method of care for the spiritual in- 
terests of “Vacant Congregations.” Chapter XIV is en- 
titled “Of Missions.” Synod recognizes its duty in this re- 
spect and regards it as its further duty to promote the 
cause. 

Article XV specifies that the election of delegates to the 
General Synod and of directors of the Theological Seminary 
shall be by ballot and that a licensed candidate shall not be 
eligible to either of these positions. Under seven sections, 
Chapter XVI provides for and regulates “Special Confer- 
ences.” The aim of the division of the Synod into these 
Conferences is that a small number of ministers may have 
opportunity to get together and discuss matters of common 
interest. Lay-delegates may be sent if thought advisable 
by the Synod. The Conference may examine into any busi- 
ness of the congregations, which is regularly referred to it, 
and give its advice; but “no Conference shail, under any 
pretext whatever, perform any business connected with the 
licensure or ordination of candidates for the ministry.’ The 
chief business, however, which ought to be performed at 
the conference meetings “is to awaken and convert sinners 
and to edify believers by close practical preaching of the 
gospel.” Two Conferences should be held annually in each 
district. 

Chapter XVII has to do with the “Ministerial Session.” 
Under eight sections this important Synodical interest is 
described. The clergy alone hold such a session, on the au- 
thority of Scripture, 


for the purpose of attending to those duties which Christ and his 
apostles enjoined upon them alone, viz., Examination, Licensure and 
Ordination of candidates for the ministry. This meeting is called the 
Ministerium or Presbytery, by which, in Scripture is meant ministers 
-alone. 


Section II permits Licentiates to be present who may have 
‘voice but no vote, and who may be requested to withdraw. 


200 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Section III pronounces the Ministerium as the “proper 
body,” for examination and decision of charges of heresy 
against ministers; as also the court of appeal from the de- 
cision of a church council on charges of heresy against a 
layman, or from decision of a Special Conference on a simi- 
lar charge against a minister. Section IV commits to the 
Ministerium the decision on the application of ordained min- 
isters of other denominations for admission into the Synod. 
Section V requires that a two thirds majority of the or- 
dained ministers be necessary for action in all matters of 
ministerial admission or advancement. Section VI lays 
down regulations governing admission of ministers or licen- 
tiates from foreign countries. Section VII declares that 
“all business not specifically entrusted to the Ministerium 
in this Formula, shall belong to the Synod.” Section VIII 
prescribes the order of business in the Ministerium. 

Chapter XVIII is entitled “Examination and Licensure 
of Candidates.” The examination shall be in charge of an 
examining committee and shall, it is recommended, be be- 
fore the whole body of the Ministerium. But intellecual 
attainment alone is not to be the subject of examination as 
the Ministerium is directed not to license any one who is not 
“hopefully pious.” The ceremony of Licensure is pre- 
scribed in Sections Five to Eight. The candidate is pledged 
to a belief in the “Scripture of the Old and New Testament 
to be the word of God and the only infallible rule of faith 
and practice’; to a belief that the “fundamental doctrines 
of the word of God are taught in a manner substantially 
eovveet im the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confes- 
sion,” and to the faithful performance of all duties enjoined 
upon him by this Formula and to the submission of himself 
to the rules of government and discipline of this same For- 
mula, so long as he remains a member of a Lutheran Synod. 
Licenses may be extended from year to year and may be 
withdrawn if the holder, after a period of probation, proves 
himself unqualified for the ministry. 

Chapter XIX provides for “Ordination.” This ceremony 


of the Lutheran Church in America 201 


may be performed either at the meeting of the Ministerium, 
or in the church to which the individual has been called, the 
ceremony being performed by the Special Conference, or a 
Committee appointed for the purpose by the President of 
the Synod. Section II prescribes the ceremony which is 
much like that of Licensure with some additional questions 
concerning a purpose faithfully to prosecute the ministry. If 
the ceremony has been performed in the church to which 
the individual has been called, the ceremony of installation 
of the latter to his ministry shall follow. 

Prescriptions for “Installation” are included in Chapter 
XX, under three sections, a distinction being made between 
a minister who has just been ordained in the presence of 
the congregation, and one who has previously been or- 
dained. 

A postscript is added which says, 


As different Synods might differ in opinion relative to matters of a 
minor nature, so many particulars only as are necessary to general 
uniformity, and harmony of operation among the churches, were in- 
troduced into this Formula. Each Synod adopting this Constitution, 
has power to form such by-laws as may seem proper to itself. 


Thus was completed the Formula for the Government and 
Discipline of both congregations and synods as the General 
Synod was led to believe was right and proper. Of this 
view concerning the Constitution of Synods—Chapters 
Eight to Twenty—the words of the General Synod itself 
through its Pastoral Address are valuable.'® These are— 
page 17— 


Concerning the Constitution for Synods adopted at this meeting, we 
would remark, that it is truly Lutheran in its character; being in 
substance little less than a condensed and systematic view of the old 
Constitution of Pennsylvania and that of New York which is chiefly 
a translation of the former. This plan was adopted for two reasons, 
because those instruments most fully met the views of the General 


116 Minutes, 1829: 15 ff. S. S. Schmucker was the author of this 
Address. 


202 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Synod, and because the substantial adoption of those venerable con- 
stitutions would naturally remove all obstacles to the reception of 
this constitution by all the different Synods of our Church. Then 
would we have one uniform, efficient, yet liberal system of church- 
government, by which we cannot but believe the prosperity of our 
Church would in a high degree be promoted. But if any Synod is un- 
willing to adopt the Formula for individual churches, our next wish 
is to unite in adopting the remaining parts of the entire system, 
namely the Constitution for Synods and the General Synod. And, 
finally, if any Synod should prefer not adopting the Constitution for 
Synods, as good Lutherans we do not object, for we are perfectly 
willing to join in the General Synod, those whose individual regula- 
tions in their Synod and churches differ from ours.117 


117 But this was in content and not in form. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 203 


CHAPTER V. 


CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLY- 
ING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNODICAL 
POLITY OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN 
AMERICA, TO 1829. 


With the inscription of the Constitution of the Minister- 
ium of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of North America 
—the Ministerium of Pennsylvania—in the Protocol of that 
body in 17811 the formal and definite beginning of synodical 
organization may be said to have begun. What organiza- 
tion was in effect before that time, while important and 
fairly well known, must be accounted of less importance 
than the organization based on the Constitution. With the 
more definite knowledge which is available after 1781 a 
study of conclusions as to principles underlying the develop- 
ment of the synodical polity in the Lutheran Church in 
America, to 1829, is in order. However, due attention will 
be given to such points of development made prior to 1781 
as will be necessary for a proper estimate of all the factors 
involved.? In addition to this some care will be taken to 
show what relation existed between the development of the 
organizations and changes and movements in general social 
life.® 


CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE Distric SYNODICAL POLITY IN 
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, TO 1829. 


It has been shown‘ that Muehlenberg was active and most 


1 The written Protocol of the Ministerium begins with the year 
1781. See Doc. Hist., III & IV: 163 ff. 

2 This whole matter is, of course, set forth in Chapter II. Here 
we interest is only in conclusions, on the basis of the details given 
there. 

3 Humphrey, Nationalism and Religion in America, 1774-89, 
Intro., espec. 10 & 11. 

4 Chapter II supra. 


204 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


anxious to promote an organization of congregations which 
would both serve and control the constituent units.’ In this 
he was successful, founding the Ministerium of Pennsylva- 
nia in 1748. By 1781, if not before, the Ministerium is 
known to have become a fairly well-organized but hardly an 
efficient body. It was the only synodical body in the Lu- 
theran Church in America at that time. What the plan of 
organization and the principles involved were have been 
shown above in detail. For the present purpose it is enough 
that its chief features be set down. 

It was a Constitution of the Ministerium of the Evangeli- 
cal Lutheran Church in North America; the Ministerium 
was a fraternal association of Lutheran ministers. Accord- 
ingly the provisions of the Constitution paid special atten- 
tion to the relations of ministers to the association. Yet it 
was said that every meeting was ‘fa Synodical Meeting.” 
Herein is the difficulty of fully understanding the organiza- 
tion. It was called a ‘‘Ministerium,” yet it performed the 
functions of a “‘Synod.’’* It had control over the ministers 
in membership and through them over the congregations 
which they served. The relation of the ministers to the 
body was one of subordination, accommodation, and respect. 
Lay-delegates were to be present at the meetings but they 
had neither seat nor vote, being present in merely an ad- 
visory capacity. A safe conclusion is that the body was not 
a “Synod” in the full sense, but it was an approach thereto 
and constituted the first step toward true synodica! organi- 
zation. In so far as the relation of the ministers was con- 
cerned there was presbyterial organization and authority. 
By reason of the lack of lay representation it cannot fairly 
be said that the polity of the body was “presbyterian,” in 
the accepted sense of that designation. It was rather a 
body under ministerial domination, if not actual control. 


5 Minutes of the 145th Annual Convention of the Evangelical Lu- 
theran Ministerium of Pennsylvania and Adjacent States, (1892): 
Appendix, 12 & 13 and espec. footnote on page 12. 

6 Ibid., 10 & 11—“The Office of Synods.” 


of the Lutheran Church in America 205 


The organization of the ministers was powerful in its au- 
thority over the ministerial members, but there was com- 
plete parity among these, no authority being exercised by 
any single individual except by delegation from the body.’ 
The first formal and recognized body was not organized in 
a way finally acceptable, nor is there evidence that princi- 
ples of organization had ever been clearly defined or ac- 
cepted. It was experimental; it was tentative. 

In the years immediately following the adoption of this 
plan of organization, momentous changes in political and 
social ideals were to take place. The first political organi- 
zation may be looked upon as having come out of the move- 
ment toward Independence following which there was not 
immediately evolved a certain plan of organization de- 
signed to take the place of the old authority of King and 
Parliament. The period of the Confederation in the politi- 
cal life of the country was notoriously a period of lack of 
efficient organization, and absence of any well-accepted 
theories of organization. So it was in the Lutheran Church. 
But when Independence was fully achieved, when men’s 
minds turned to attack the problem of better and more effi- 
cient ways of control, the activities of the time were re- 
flected in church organization and government. The 
Methodist Episcopal Church was organized on a national 
scope in 1784;° the Protestant Episcopal in 1785;° the Pres- 
byterian Church was reorganized into a stronger general 
body in 1788,'° the first General Assembly meeting the next 
year. 

The spirit of Democracy was coming to be the dominant 
spirit and state and federal constitutions were being shaped 
accordingly. Every one of the churches organized or re- 
organized at this time had to take account of the Zeitgeist. 


fa Ltd 112, 

8 Buckley, A History of Methodists in the United States, 242. 

9 Tiffany, A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America, 344. 


10 Thompson, A History of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States, 65. 


206 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


This was not without its effect upon Lutheran Church orga- 
nization. 

Two sons of Father Muehlenberg had risen to prominence 
during the days of the struggle with the mother country 
and both were prominent in the days of the building of the 
nation. F. A. C. Muehlenberg sat as Chairman of the 
Pennsylvania Convention at which the Federal Constitution 
was ratified and he became the first Speaker of the National 
House of Representatives. Peter Gabriel Muehlenberg had 
risen to the rank of Major General in the army of the United 
States and was active in politics until his death. Both were 
ardent supporters of a strong Federal Government but also 
of the idea of Democracy. Both had been ordained and 
were active Lutheran pastors when the War began but 
neither exercised his office after the War, although both re- 
mained as active lay-members of the Church throughout 
their lives. 

The congregation in Philadelphia to which both belonged 
began the movement toward lay participation in the meet- 
ings of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, the result of which 
was a revision of the Constitution in 1792.1: But before 
this, in New York, the spirit of the times had worked upon 
the founders of the New York Ministerium so that they pro- 
vided for lay participation in synodical conventions. Yet 
the Constitution of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania of 
1792 may be taken as the first important evidence of the in- 
fluence of the political and social ideals of the day and age 
upon Lutheran Church polity.” 

This Constitution has been described in detail above so 
that it is necessary here to point out only the important fea- 
tures. In addition to the notable change in the inclusion of 
lay-delegates as regular members of the synodical conven- 
tion, the scope of the organization was restricted to “‘Ger- 


11 Minutes, 1892: Appendix, 13, footnote. 

12 Jbid., 13—“The close connection of the revision of our synodical 
constitution with the contemporary work of constitution making and 
revising by the civil government, is interesting and important.” 


of the Lutheran Church in America 207 


man” Churches in “Pennsylvania and Adjacent States.” 
Lay control is, however, guarded against in that there were 
never to be more lay-delegates voting than were voting 
clergymen present. Lay representation is not required, 
while that of the ministry is required. To preserve some- 
what of the former prerogatives of the Ministry a “Minis- 
terial Meeting” was provided for at which matters concern- 
ing ministerial rank were cared for, lay-delegates not being 
present. 

The Constitution of 1792 was a well-considered and care- 
fully constructed document and continued in force, with but 
few changes and these of little importance, until 1841. The 
Constitution of the New York Ministerium and of all the 
other earlier Synods were copied from it and it stands as 
one of the most important papers in American Lutheran 
Church history. Under it the synodical polity of the Minis- 
terium can properly be said to have become presbyterial in 
all essential points. This appears to be easily explained. 
Aside from the Scriptural authority which the Fathers of 
the American Lutheran Church attached to this form of 
government, and they seem to have attached much of it, it 
was the polity of the strongest, best and most efficiently or- 
ganized, and most influential church body in America in 
that day, namely, the Presbyterian Church. In addition to 
this the Reformed Bodies,'* to which the Lutheran Church 
had always felt closest in this country, had the same general 


13. Mann, Lutheranism in America, 110 & 11, “What Spener had 
already aimed at in Germany, and what is truly evangelical, namely, 
the active participation of the laity in the government of the congre- 
gation and Church, our fathers succeeded in accomplishing in the 
organization of the Lutheran Church in this country. But whilst 
doing so, they did not, in a genuine Lutheran spirit, lose sight of the 
difference between the ordo clericus and laicus, and therefore sepa- 
rated, as a distinct unit, the Ministerium, i. e., that body composed 
exclusively of regularly ordained ministers, from the other distinct 
unit, composed of regularly ordained ministers and lay-delegates, as- 
signing to each its special business. This introduction of Presby- 
terian government was the most significant change experienced by the 
Lutheran Church at the time of its transplantation from the Old to 
the New World.” 

14 Thompson, op. cit., 65-68; Humphrey, op. cit., Chapter 4. 


208 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


scheme of organization. As the Lutheran theory was that 
no form was divinely appointed, it was logical to adapt that 
which experience showed to be efficient and which was 
nearest to the American ideals of political government. This 
does not mean that the Lutheran Church was ready to at- 
tach the same significance to the system as did the Presby- 
terians themselves, or that they were thus affected by Pres- 
byterian theological views. It simply means that efficiency 
and conformity with the political and social ideals of the 
country were sought and these qualities were found in the 
presbyterial system. 

As time went on, the development of district synodical 
polity became of greater consequence and wider application. 
If it followed after that of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania 
as set forth in the Constitution of 1792 it was by reason of 
the appeal of common sense and successful operation and 
not by reason of any force or the dictation of a superior au- 
thority. There was no superior authority in the Lutheran 
Church in America; each synod was independent and was 
free to seek its own best interests. When a general organi- 
zation was formed in 1820 for the first time there was es- 
tablished an organization with authority, at least by reason 
of its prestige, over the district bodies. In 1829 that body 
adopted a complete system of government and included in 
that a Constitution for Synods. This Constitution was un- 
derstood to be suggestive and was heartily recommended to 
all district synods but it was never required to be adopted 
by any. It was understood to embody the consensus of the 
General Synod as to the proper and necessary synodical pro- 
visions and so may be taken as the expression of organized 
Lutheranism of that day with respect to synodical organiza- 
tion. While the Ministeriums of New York and Pennsylva- 
nia were not then members of the General Synod the fact 
that the Constitution embodied their ideas also is testified to 
by the General Synod itself.'® 

When the contents of this Constitution are brought 


15 Minutes, General Synod, 1829: 17. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 209 


clearly to mind one will have, then, conclusions concerning 
the development of district synodical polity in the Lutheran 
Church in America to the end of the period of interest here, 
1829. From this it is noticed, in the first place, that a synod 
shall consist of all the ministers and an equal number of lay- 
delegates, within a certain district, but that the number of 
the lay-votes ‘‘can” never exceed the total number of clerical 
votes. In the second place, the Synod is charged with the 
enforcement of government and discipline upon both min- 
isters and congregations within its bounds and with the re- 
ception of appeals from Congregational Councils and Spe- 
cial Conferences, of examining and deciding ail charges 
against ministers, of forming or changing ministerial dis- 
tricts, and of attending to any business relating to the 
churches which is brought before it. In the third place, the 
synod has the power to cite before it any church-member 
within its bounds. In the fourth place, refusal on the part 
of any congregation to obey the constitution or the resolu- 
tions of Synod shall be dealt with by the exclusion of that 
congregation from the fellowship of the Synod during the 
time of its refusal. During such time no other Synod and 
no minister shall take charge of it without the permission 
of the President of the Synod. In the fifth place, a definite 
method of entering into Synodical membership on the part 
of congregations is devised. This is in striking contrast to 
the former idea that a congregation had membership by 
reason of its pastor’s membership in the Synod. In the 
sixth place, attendance by ministers upon the meetings of 
the Synod is compulsory, but excuses may be granted for 
urgent reasons. In the seventh place, lay-delegates are 
guaranteed equal rights with the ministers in all business 
relating to the Synod. In the eighth place, a ‘‘Ministerial 
Session” is provided for at which matters of ministerial 
rank are cared for. In words reminiscent of the Tenth 
Amendment to the Federal Constitution it is said, “all busi- 
ness not specifically entrusted to the Ministerium in this 
Formula, shall belong to the Synod.” A number of other 


210 The Development of the Lutheran Polity 


provisions of lesser importance than the ones just given are 
included, for this was a document intended to exercise wide 
influence and to have an important place as expressing the 
fruitage of Lutheran district synodical development. Two 
of the Synods in connection with the General Synod shortly 
afterward adopted it and synods later joining the body 
either adopted it as a whole or in such modified form only 
as still to conform with the views of the General Synod as 
they had been expressed in this paper. 

By virtue of the limitation of the scope of the Ministerium 
of Pennsylvania through the Constitution of 1792, evidence 
of a new alignment or grouping of congregations into 
synods may be seen. The Ministerium of New York was 
recognized as an accepted body; promise was given of the 
compliance of the “Mother Synod” with any future request 
or purpose to organize other district synodical bodies. At 
first the organizations were roughly after the political di- 
visions, e. g., the Ministerium of New York, the Synod of 
North Carolina, the Synod of Ohio.* The effect of the po- 
litical organization of the country seems fairly to be seen in 
the organization of the church. As each State, at least as 
the Republicans viewed it, had a certain inalienable inde- 
pendence and constituted a unit of importance in itself, so 
the congregations in the bounds of these limits grouped 
themselves together and set up independent and all-suffi- 
cient organizations.17 The Germans of Pennsylvania were 


16 But it should be remembered that the Ministerium of Pennsyl- 
vania was that of “Pennsylvania and the Adjacent States,” while that 
of New York was of “the State of New York and Adjacent States and 
Countries.”” Later the Synod of West Pennsylvania was formed. 
The Synod of Maryland and Virginia, organized in 1820, divided into 
Mag tee each comprising the congregations in a single state in 

29. 

17 Hockett, Political and Social History of the United States, 
1492-1826, 222: “Nationalism was as far beyond the ken of the peo- 
ple in 1787 as democracy was foreign to the purpose of the dominant 
group.” 218: The strength of the opposition to the Federal consti- 
tution was in the rural and interior parts. The Constitution was the 
program of the dominant class. 219: Ratification was rushed through 
the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention. Anti-Federalism was 
strong in the State except in Philadelphia and the eastern counties. 
The delegates of the back-country farmers feared the strengthening 
of the central government. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 211 


inclined toward independence from all centralized points of 
control. They were later strong Republicans. But some 
of the leaders, e. g., the Muehlenbergs, were enthusiastic 
Federalists, though they were also Republicans (Demo- 
crats) until the Civil War. The connection between politi- 
cal de-centralization and ecclesiastical de-centralization 
ought to be clear. The strong sentiment of the Germans 
for political de-centralization was carried over into the ec- 
clesiastical organization.'® The Synods, while they increas- 
ingly became more powerful and effective in their authority, 
never attained, during this period, to the effectiveness of 
the Presbytery as the Presbyterians developed it. After 
Muehlenberg’s death there was a general deterioration in 
fidelity to the Confessional principle and in the efficiency of 
the Synod, and even of the congregations.’® Jacobs says,?° 


Not indifferent to attendance upon synodical sessions, where, for a 
time, the proceeds of certain European legacies were divided into 
small shares among those present, the connection of such pastors with 
the body was otherwise so loose that they were ready on the least 
provocation to declare themselves independent, and insisted that it 
was the office of the synod only to give advice, which, at their pleas- 
ure, they were free to accept or reject. 


It is not to be unexpected that a body that had no general 


18 For the effect of this upon the General Synod, see below, in 
loco. Recall Jacobs’ statement as given, pages 63, 4. Note also the fol- 
lowing letter of Henry E. Jacobs to A. R. Wentz, September 20, 1924. 
.... “I was anxious to treat of the Colonial Church in general, and 
then of the organized forms it assumed, of which that of our own 
Church would have claimed primary consideration. The patriarch’s 
plans, as he had outlined them, were broken in upon by the Revolu- 
tionary War, and, as his descendant, Dr. M. H. Richards, has stated 
in his article “Ecclesia Plantanda Plantata” (L. C. R. 1889, Janu- 
ary) when peace came, he was too old to resume them. The complete 
organization fell into different hands (F. A. M., J. C. K.; and J. H. 
H.), that, in sympathy with parallel processes (?) going on in other 
denominations, sacrificed some of the patriarch’s ideals, and formed 
the basis of our development almost up to the present. Among its 
chief characteristics was the stress laid upon State organizations, in- 
stead of regarding the whole country.” 

For expansion of church organization of new Synods, etc., see 
Wentz, The Lutheran Church in American History, Chapter 9. 

19 Minutes, 1892: Appendix, 18. 

20 Jacobs, op. cit., 325. 


212 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


interests failed to command respect and loyal adherence. 
The Ministerium was without aggressiveness, had no mis- 
sions and no projects which would call for general interest 
and service.2:. And so it was with all the district synodical 
bodies until 1820 when a general organization of the synods 
was formed. But even after that, while a gratifying in- 
crease in prestige and appeal on the part of the synods may 
be noted, authority was not enjoyed and even in 1856 a 
recognized authority could write, 


One of the greatest disadvantages under which the Lutheran Church 
has long labored is that looseness....... This looseness has thrown 
the door wide open to the arbitrary conduct of individuals....... Our 
Synods, although composed of clerical and lay delegates, are only ad- 
visory bodies. Individual ministers do not appear to regard them- 
selves in duty bound to obey the resolutions of Synod, except they 
please to do so.22 


S. S. Schmucker expresses the same views concerning the 
district synodical organization. In an address delivered 4 
October, 18407* and printed again in 1852 he gives this ex- 
pression which may be taken as a matured, deliberate state- 
ment of his views. In speaking of the ‘Primitive Fea- 
tures’”’ of the Lutheran Church, he sets down as the third 
feature, her government." After quoting Mosheim with 
approval, concerning his description of European Lutheran 
Church organization, he says, 


Hence, with the universal acknowledgment of the parity of minis- 
ters by divine right, they introduced some subordination on the ground 
of human expediency, and designated those to whom the supervision 
of certain districts was confided, superintendents, consistorial coun- 
sellors, inspectors, etc. In the United States entire parity is main- 
tained, and even the nominal office of Senior Ministerii, is retained 
by only one out of all our Synods. 


21 Minutes, 1892: Appendix 14. 

22 Mann, Lutheranism in America, 142. 
23 The American Lutheran Church, 41 ff. 
24 Page 52. 


of the Lutheran Church in America ALS 


Still further in the same discourse he sets down as the sixth 
feature of improvement, the adoption of a more regular and 
rigid system of church government and discipline in this 
country.”> After saying that the union between church and 
state in Europe has prevented the established churches from 
adopting an independent and thoroughly scriptural disci- 
pline, he points out the system as adopted by the General 
Synod, which 


it is believed, contains all the prescriptions of the Saviour and His 
apostles, and all that appeared most valuable in the systems of the 
different other churches. The government and discipline of each in- 
dividual church is essentially like that of our Presbyterian brethren. 
Our Synods, also, in structure and powers, most resemble their Pres- 
byteries, having fewer formalities in their proceedings, and frequently 
couchin gtheir decisions in forms of recommendations.2* Our Gen- 
eral Synod is wholly an advisory body, etc. 


In concluding this point he says, 


This system of government is not yet adopted by all our Synods; yet 
its general features, with perhaps a greater admixture of Congrega- 
tionalism, substantially pervade those Synods also, which have not 
yet united with the General Synod. 


It is hardly too much to say that the inclination to the 
system of Congregationalism was a leading reason why 
some of these Synods would not unite with the General 
Synod. Of course, in such the bonds of authority and the 
prestige of the Synods themselves were loosely drawn. 

It is clear from the foregoing observations concerning 
district synodical organization in the Lutheran Church in 
America up to 1829 that the district organization developed 
along presbyterial lines; that the district synod was coming 
to be a factor of influence in the church life; that for effi- 
ciency in administration in congregational and intercon- 
gregational matters a comparatively small body, generally 
confined to a single state or part of a state, had proved itself 


25 Pages 66 & 7. 
26 Italics mine. 


214 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


successful and so the plan was usually accepted and con- 
tinues in effect even until the present. But larger interests 
also claimed attention and demanded consideration. For 
these the district organization was not sufficient. A gen- 
eral synodical organization was necessary. To a study of 
conclusions concerning such an organization attention wilf 
now be given. 


CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE’ 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE General SYNODICAL POLITY IN 
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, TO 1829. 


In addition to the problems of the organization of the 
American churches on national lines which were common 
to all the churches?’ the Lutheran Church in America had 
some special problems which can be credited with causing 
the slow reaction to changed conditions on its part. These 
were involved in the fact that the Church was largely Ger- 
man-speaking, and consequently was set apart from the 
general line of religious development.?® By no means did 
the Church follow the policy of Muehlenberg and seek to 
accomplish the Americanization of the denomination as he 
had considered it necessary to be done, and that speedily.?® 
Consequently it accomplished its first general organization, 
a first effort at organization on a national scope, thirty-six 
years after the Methodists, and thirty-two years after the 
plan for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
had been completed. 

Whereas in 1709 nationalism was far beyond the appre- 


27 These were involved in the general condition of religious tor-- 
por which was finally broken in the early years of the nineteenth cen-. 
tury and in the political struggles between Federalists and Republi- 
cans; aristocrats, at least alleged, against rank democrats; centrali-. 
zation versus de-centralization; broad versus narrow powers for the 
national government; liberal versus strict construction of the Con-. 
stitution of the United States. These were the outstanding prob- 
lems of the time. The same issues were also alive in church organi- 
zation and administration. 

28 Wentz, op. cit., 82, 83. 

29 Humphrey, op. cit., 310. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 215 


elation of the great mass of the people,®® at the close of the 
‘second war with England the spirit of nationalism had at- 
‘tained a vigor never before shown. “It pervaded all of the 
measures of reconstruction which followed the peace.’’*! 
After the accession of the Republicans to the control of the 
government in 1801 a change began to be effective in their 
ranks. The party, immediately upon accession, began to 
give new interpretations to old policies and to undergo a 
process of nationalization.**? At this same time an active 
period of road-building was begun, this to continue for 
twenty years.**? The country west of the Appalachian 
range was being opened up rapidly, Kentucky came in as 
the fifteenth state in 1792; Tennessee as the sixteenth in 
1796, while Ohio, as the first fruits of the provisions of the 
North West Ordinance, came in in 1802, and Indiana and 
Illinois followed in 1816 and 1818, respectively. These ex- 
tensions of the national authority, together with the acqui- 
sition of a veritable empire west of the Mississippi, which 
had been acquired by the strictest of the strict construction- 
ists on very questionable constitutional authority, all to- 
gether served to call the people to an appreciation of a na- 
tionalist position and a national pride. Add to this a na- 
tional triumph over an old enemy, and a national! solidarity 
and a resultant vision and expression were bound to result. 

Monroe’s election in 1816 marked the beginning of the 
so-called “Era of Good Feeling” and with it came a fading 
into complete oblivion of the bitter party antagonisms of 
former years.** This “Era” continued for the greater part 
of the two terms given Monroe and an advance was made in 
establishing good feeling in several phases of life. In 1817, 
the three hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the 
Protestant Reformation, gave occasion to the Lutherans to 
invite other Protestant bodies to join with them in a proper 


30 Hockett, op. cit., 222. 

31. [bid:,. 333. 

32 Ibid., 332. 

33 Channing, History of the United States, 5: 5. 
34 Hockett, op. cit., 391. 


216 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


observance of the jubilee. All of the denominations took 
some notice of the event and the result was to raise the Lu- 
theran Church in the eyes of others and, what was probably 
of more importance, in the eyes of its own members. It 
had a glorious past and a great strength in other lands, why 
should it be so weak and so little regarded in America? The 
accomplishment of the union of the Lutheran and the Re- 
formed Churches in Prussia as a memorial to the Jubilee 
was looked upon in many quarters as the announcement of 
still more and greater unions of religious denominations. 
Never had the churches been so close together in fraternal 
feeling and kindliness. 

The Reformation Jubilee in 1817 became cone of the chief 
impulses active in the formation of the first general synodi- 
cal body of Lutherans in America.** This effectively 
brought to serious and final decision a contemplated purpose 
to unite the district synods already in existence, and those 
soon to be formed as the country grew, into some kind of 
organization so that the Lutheran strength would be con- 
served, and the desire to form a body of sufficient appeal 
and inclusiveness to accomplish for the Lutheran Church 
what was observed as being accomplished for the other im- 
portant church bodies. It is fair to say that a** practical 


35 Jacobs, op. cit., 8351; Spaeth, “Charles Porterfield Krauth and 
the General Synod up to the year 1859,” in The Lutheran Church Re- 
view, 18: 10. 

36 This practical aim on the part of the founders of the General 
Synod was partially realized immediately but it was in the later his- 
tory of the organization that it came to be more fully realized. The 
fact of this later fuller realization is evidence of the correctness of 
the eonelusion here drawn. The genius of the General Synod was in 
its practical achievements. This was more noticeable and more im- 
portant after 1869 when the various missionary activities of the 
Church were brought into close relationship with the General Synod 
through the system of “Boards.’’ The practical aim, as well as the 
evident success which attended the efforts in that direction, are all 
clearly evident when the career of the General Synod is compared 
with that of the General Council. Practical Christian activity was 
the chief interest of the General Synod; development along doctrinal, 
liturgical, and traditional lines made up the chief interests of the 
General Council. The United Synod of the South occupied a position 
between the two. When, in 1918, the United Lutheran Church was 
formed by a merger of these three bodies all of the lines of develop- 
ment coming out of the “Muehlenberg Development” were effectively 
combined and so conserved. 


of the Lutheran Church in America ZUF 


aim was in the minds of the founders of the General Synod 
of the Lutheran Church.*? This goes far to meet much of 
the criticism that was directed at the organization. 

This was also the purpose in the minds of those who drew 
up the “Plan-Entwurf.’ They said that since the Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Church had spread itself over the greater 
part of the United States, and its members were striving to 
live together in the spirit of love and harmony, it had be- 
come the custom for Synods, or Ministeriums, to meet for 
the promotion of that end. 


But inasmuch as the number of particular Synods or Ministeriums 
has increased from time to time, on acount of the wide extension of 
said church, and the continued and increasing operation of the same 
will probably lead to the still further increase of the number of 
Synods and Ministeriums, and this might in the end be the means of 
bringing about unnecessary and injurious divisions and departures 
from the end and object hitherto pursued in common by said church; 
it appears to be the universal wish of the existing Synods or Minis- 
teriums, that a fraternal union of the whole Evangelical Lutheran 
Church in these United States may be effected by means of a central 
organization.—Doc. Hist., 541 ff. 


Article I proposed that this central union be carried into 
effect and maintained by an organization to be called The 
General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the 
United States of North America. 

S. S. Schmucker was not a member of any of the bodies 
which deliberated concerning the establishment of the Gen- 
eral Synod, but he was present and unofficially active at 
every meeting from the first. When he later officially en- 
tered its conventions and took an active part in its delibera- 
tions and projects, it had been established, its organic forms 
had been fashioned, its aims had been stated. But, in view 
of his earlier connnection, he was perfectly at home in the 
organization and fully acquainted with its purposes and 


37 Even the Baptists and Congregationalists had general organi- 
zations and were observed to be profiting thereby. See Humphrey, 
op. cit., 348 & 346. 


218 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


ideals. Inasmuch as he became its chief exponent and re- 
mained so for a period of at least thirty years, it will be well 
to take account of what he has said concerning it and its 
purposes.*® 

Dr. Schmucker was a constant and fruitful writer over a 
period of fifty years. In many of his writings, in many 
places, he explains the purpose of the founders of the Gen- 
eral Synod, and the form and theory of the organization. A 
few of his statements have been selected as sufficient to set 
forth the views of this important figure. The one most 
suited for the purpose here isthe article, ‘““Gemeinfassliche 
Bemerkungen ueber die Vereinigung der Lutherischen 
Synoden in den Vereinigten Staaten.’*® In this he, after 
noting the fact that opposition is made against the General 
Synod, proceeds to plead its value as a practical agency for 
the strengthening of the Lutheran Church, even as a union 
of component parts has benefitted other church bodies, 
while such a union is an evidence of brotherly love and fra- 


38 “Dr. Schmucker had been associated with and most deeply in- 
terested in the General Synod for over half a century. From its 
very inception at Baltimore in 1819, until the year of his death in 
1874, (sic.) he was present at every one of its meeting's, either as a 
delegate or as a visitor.” Anstadt, Life and Times of Rev. S. S. 
Schmucker, D.D., 230. 

“Tf Mr. Schmucker was too young to be one of the nominal found- 
ers of the General Synod, he is entitled to the lasting gratitude of the 
church for saving it from dissolution.” Diehl, “Dr. S. S. Schmucker,” 
in The Lutheran Quarterly, 4: 16. 

“In the G. S. and its work he took an active part from his entrance 
into the ministry to the close of his life. Though not a delegate to 
the body until its third meeting in 1823, he was present in 1819, 1820 
& 21. When in 1828 the Ministerium of Pennsylvania withdrew,.... 
he was very active in the measures taken to prolong its life.” B. M. 
Schmucker, Pa. College Book, 155. 

“An ardent friend of this General Union of the Synods from its 
incipiency, he was willing to step forward in its defence, and having 
been present as a visitor at Baltimore in 1819, when the formation of 
such a body was first the subject of synodical discussion, and at 
Hagerstown in 1820, when the constitution was discussed and 
adopted; present as a member of the body in 1823, and either as a 
member or visitor at every meeting held since, the writer may, with- 
out vanity or presumption, profess to be acquainted with its design, 
history and spirit, and may ask a hearing in its behalf.” S. S. 
Schmucker, The Church of the Redeemer, III & IV. 

39 See Bibliography. This was published in 1830. Translation 
mine. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 219 


ternal good-will. To make himself clear he asks and an- 
swers three questions. The first is “What is the General 
Synod?” To this he answers that one can get the surest 
answer from the Constitution; in the first two Articles one 
finds clearly set forth what the organization is and whence 
it arose. It is a body of representatives of Lutheran 
Synods and nothing else. It is a protection against the at- 
tacks of the sects and is an effective agency in continuing, 
creating and holding the spirit of Lutheranism. It is not 
so large or powerful as to menace the freedom and inde- 
pendence of the synods, and because the members of the 
body are not strangers to one another they can trust one an- 
other not to work to the detriment of the Church but rather 
for its welfare. 


From the above-mentioned we see ‘that the General Synod is a 
small body, consisting of fifteen to twenty (if all the Synods unite, 
thirty) preachers in addition to congregational delegates, which are 
chosen through the various Synods out of their own members, and 
are sent to a central point in order to counsel with one another over 
the welfare of the whole Lutheran Church and to seek to promote the 
common welfare through good means.’ 


From the above the conclusion is fairly reached that 
Schmucker considered the General Synod, first of all, as a 
practical means to a desirable end. | 

This is further borne out in the answer to the second 
question, ‘‘What is it good for?” To this 


we answer, this union of Synods promotes the aim for which Chris- 
tians from early times have formed themselves into congregations 
and separate Synods, and accomplishes other important, highly 
worthy benefits, which the single parts could not accomplish for them- 
selves. 


In bringing together the scattered parts of the Church it 
promotes a common feeling and brotherly love; inspiring 
all the parts of the Church with new courage and zeal, it 
unites her strength in the advancement of God’s kingdom. 


In short, just as the different States of our land have become strength- 


220 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


ened through Congress, just so shall the General Synod unite the 
different parts of our Church, encourage them for the good and pre- 
serve them in peace. Is it not probable that since the establishment 
of our united Synod the various parts of the same show far more 
zeal and courage in the expansion of the Kingdom of Jesus than was 
the case in earlier times? Must not every one who is acquainted with 
the history of our Church confess that since the ten years of existence 
of this Synod more has been done to build up our congregations, to 
send out missionaries into the back country, to prepare Godly, in- 
spired men for the holy work of preaching, than had happened in the 
forty years previous? 


Again, the union prevents many unnecessary expenses for 
the congregations. This is in the matter of the prevention 
of the multiplication of books for use in the churches. Other 
important advantages of the General Synod could be 
brought forth but space does not permit, so he asks the 
third question, “What harm can it do?” To this he an- 
swers that since the General Synod has nothing to do with 
individual preachers it cannot press the consciences of either 
them or their congregations; the General Synod cannot 
coerce a Synod, it can only advise it to follow a particular 
course, and if the Synod does not obey it can only shut it 
out of the union. To the contention that the General Synod 
could rob its members of their worldly freedom and burden 
them with taxes, the answer is given that the constitution of 
the United States protects the members, and the intimation 
is that it is absurd to think of such a thing. In any case, the 
fact that the General Synod is made up of the same people 
who are known in their communities and are close to those 
who raise such objections is enough to make the objection 
of no weight. 

In 1866 Schmucker expressed the same views concerning 
the purpose in the organization of the General Synod.*® He 
said, 


the original design of the General Synod of our Church, in this 
country, was to effect a fraternal union or confederation, of limited 


40 Church of the Redeemer, Dedication, vii. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 22 


and advisory powers, between all the Lutheran Synods then existing 
in our country. 


The purpose of the organization of the General Synod is 
accordingly set down as a practical effort to conserve the 
Church and to promote its growth and influence.*! True, 
certain elements in the American Lutheran Church of the 
day could not appreciate the importance of the need of such 
an organization and so were opposed or indifferent to its 
success. Most unalterably opposed to it stood the Ten- 
nessee Synod. Sufficient has been said above to explain its 
position, but the question remains as to why this was as- 
sumed. The answer seems to lie in the character and out- 
look of the men of that Synod. They were, for the most 
part, self-educated men of narrow outlook. Living in the 
back country they were easily led to narrow their views, and 
to fail to appreciate the lines of development and the new 
tendencies in the nation at large. Further, they were theo- 
retical in the position and not at all practical. They would 
not yield on what they considered a point of importance 
theologically for any amount of practical advantage. The 
men of the Ministerium of New York, on the whole, were 
provincial and indifferent to the larger appeals and uncon- 
cerned with matters apart from their own immediate vicin- 
ity. In the Ministerium of Pennsylvania many viewed the 


41 The matter is no better summed up than in the following: “As 
the church began to diffuse itself over a more extended territory, and 
the number of District Synods was increased, the propriety of form- 
ing some central bond of union was often discussed. The conviction, 
from year to year, deepened among those who were interested in the 
prosperity of the Church, that a step of this kind was necessary, in 
order that injudicious divisions might not arise, and that more gen- 
eral uniformity in the usages and practice of the Church might pre- 
vail. Our best men felt that the occasional intercourse of the Dis- 
trict Synods, through their representatives assembled in General Con- 
vention, would secure to the Church great advantages and impart in- 
creased strength and more efficient action to all these enterprises, in 
which concentration is so essential to success. This is the origin of 
the General Synod, which forms a new epoch in our history and has 
been a great blessing to the Church.”—‘“‘The Evangelical Lutheran 
Church in the United States of America,” in the Evangelical Quar- 
terly Review, 20: 121. 


Zaz The Development of the Synodical Polity 


General Synod as a necessity, in fact the movement for its 
organization began in this party in the old Ministerium, but 
these yielded for the sake of peace and the welfare of the 
Ministerium to the demands of what was indeed a majority 
who were averse to the General Synod. These latter were 
influenced by their political ideas which were always op- 
posed to centralization of control and authority.** The 
Synod of Ohio remained outside of the General Synod 
largely because as a frontier body it had its own immediate 
problems and cared for little else. Also, that the Mother 
Synod withdrew, after having effected the general organi- 
zation, had a powerful effect upon this young body. 

On the other hand, within the General Synod, or sympa- 
thizing with its purpose even while outside of it, were the 
more progressive, though not always wise, elements which 
profiting by the observation of the success of other church 
bodies through organization, and participating in the spirit 
of the times, actively urged the formation of the body, and 
having seen it organized labored to continue its life. 
Their idea was to organize, unite the parts of the church, 
forgetting for the moment theological and other difficulties, 
for the greater end in view. Internal adjustment and read- 
justment they would reserve for the future. 

But what was the authority given to the General Synod 
at its organization and in what way, if any, was this in- 
creased before the end of the first decade of its history? The 
theory underlying the matter was that the General Synod 
was to be only the organized expression of the constituent 
synods and so was to have only such authority as the synods 
uniting chose to give it. In the Constitution the powers 
thus committed are clearly set forth.*4 And they were such 


42 The political views of the “Pennsylvania Dutch” at this time, 
of which class a great proportion of the members of the Ministerium 
of Pennsylvania were counted, are well stated in Channing, op. cit., 
5: 8369-71.; C. P. Krauth, “The General Synod,” in The Lutheran and 
Missionary,’ May 8, 1866. 

43 Spaeth, op. cit., 14. 

44 See above, page 158 ff. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 223 


that the consensus of opinion is that the General Synod was 
only an advisory body.*® 

It has already been pointed out** that Rev. Shober of 
North Carolina, at the meeting in 1819 presented a plan 
“resembling, in many respects, the Constitution of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.” This “was 
submitted by him to the Synod, and constituted the basis of 
the discussions, held on the subject.” The Plan was sub- 
mitted to a committee who later reported it, considerably 
modified, “the objectionable points were stricken out, and 
some of the prominent features of the Congregational sys- 
tem introduced.’’*7 As the years went by the advisory 
powers became more effective but they remained only ad- 
visory and were thus really limited. Conformity to actions 
could be forced, if at all, by the threat of or actual with- 
drawal of fellowship with the offending synod. In this re- 
spect it was Congregational rather than Presbyterian. 


45 Mann, Lutheranism in America, 35: “The General Synod..... 
is not a legislative, but rather an advisory body for the church.’’ 
Schmucker, The Lutheran Church in America, 67: “Our General 
Synod is wholly an advisory body, resembling: the consociations of the 
Congregational Churches in New England.” Schmucker, Church of 
the Redeemer, 178: “Exercising the liberty allowed to all Churches in 
things not defined in the Scriptures, the Churches of the General 
Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church have adopted three forms 
of associated government, namely: the Council, District Synods, and, 
lastly, the General Synod..... Its powers are chiefly advisory, and 
its principal duties are to inspect the ministers (sic. minutes (?) ) of 
the District Synods, in order to exert a favorable influence on the 
Church at large.” Jbid., 182: “In 1827, the General Synod appointed 
a Committee to prepare a Constitution for the Government and Dis- 
cipline of the District Synods. These two, together with the Consti- 
tution of the General Synod, constitute a complete system of govern- 
ment and discipline of the Scripture standard. The General Synod 
is in most matters an advisory council, although in regard to several 
specified cases, it may act as a court of appeals, and exercise more 
active powers. It is probable that, in accordance with the original 
design of the Plan of 1819, stronger powers will be conferred on it by 
the revised constitution, to be reported at the next meeting of the 
body, [This was in 1868, and then the Constitution as greatly amended 
was adopted and sent to the various district synods for decision], in 
order to secure greater uniformity of the books and forms of public 
worship.” 

46 Page 148, footnote 9. 

A7 “Our General Synod,” in the Hvangelical Quarterly Review, 
5: 240. 


224 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


At first the General Synod had existence only in the actual 
gathering of the delegates, and while they sat in convention. 
Until 1835 the minutes or proceedings are of the specified 
General Synod; beginning with that year they are for the 
specified Convention of the General Synod. This is easily 
to be understood. At first, and before there were developed 
the lines of activity the business of the body was confined 
largely to deliberations in convention. But when activities 
and interests were multiplied the officers and committees 
came to represent the body even between conventions. Defi- 
nite constitutional recognition of this state of active exist- 
ence between conventions seems to have been made how- 
ever for the first time in the Constitution adopted in 1869 in 
which the “Boards” are established.** 

It is evident that the General Synod was an important 
factor in the life of the Lutheran Church in America after 
1820.49 However, it remains to attempt a more definite ap- 
praisal of its importance and influence. In this connection 
it should be noted that its organization made possible the 
independence of the Lutheran Church in this country.’ It 
made possible the conviction that the way was open and the 
force available to cut loose from European influences and 
ways. An American Lutheran Church was assured for 


48 The United Lutheran Church in America has constitutional 
provision for an Executive Board also which carries on the work of 
the Church authorized by the Bi-Annual Convention. “It shall be 
the duty of the Executive Board to represent The United Lutheran 
Church in America and to carry out its resolutions and attend to its 
business during the interim; it shall co-ordinate the work of the 
executive departments, receive reports as to the work and needs of 
the several boards, present a budget to the Convention with appor- 
tionments, fill vacancies not otherwise provided for, and perform such 
other work as may be delegated to it by the general body, to which it 
shall make full report of its acts.”—Constitution of the United Lu- 
theran Church in America, Article XI: Section 3. The activities of 
the Executive Board have several times been called into question. If 
the Executive Board comes to assume powers not subject to approval 
of the Convention the original idea in the formation of the General 
Synod will be entirely given up, and the theory underlying the Con- 
stitution of the United Lutheran Church will be disregarded. 

49 Kline, “‘The Genesis of the General Synod,” in The Lutheran 
Quarterly, 49: 55 ff. 

50 Wentz, op. cit., 109 & 10. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 225 


America! The rationalizing and unionistic influences from 
abroad and from some quarters at home could now be met 
and defeated. In the eyes of churchmen of other denomi- 
nations the Lutheran Church was now able to assume a new 
position of dignity and distinctness which was fruitful in 
later greater prestige and power. It was American in its 
organization and that meant much.*! 

But the General Synod not only did much good for the 
cause of the Lutheran Church in America, it also did not do 
evil as its opposers had predicted. 


Thirty-three years have elapsed since the formation of the General 
Synod, and the sequal has shown that its pious founders did not 
overestimate its importance, or the advantages that would result 
from its operation. Time has proved the excellence of the institu- 
tion, and has fully satisfied almost all, who were hostile to the union, 
that the fears they entertained were groundless, and that the charge 
of encroachment on the rights of the individual synods was alto- 
gether gratuitous.®2 


Opinion had prevailed among some that the General Synod 


51 C. P. Krauth well sums up the matter in The Missionary for 
April 30, 1857, thus: ‘“‘When the General Synod became completely 
organized, .... it was the only voluntary body on earth pretending 
to embrace a nation as its territory, and bearing a Lutheran name in 
which the fundamental doctrines of Lutheranism were the basis of 
union. The General Synod was a declaration on the part of the Lu- 
theran Church in America, that she had no intention of dying or 
moving—that she liked this western world and meant to live here.” 
See also Jacobs’ oft-quoted estimate, op. cit., 361 & 2. Wentz, op. cit., 
111, 2, “Thus the Lutheran Church in America was provided with a 
general organization, which, like that of the national government, 
was destined to grow in power and influence with the passing of the 
years. That it should have come into being in this period of our his- 
tory is easily understood. It paralleled the movement in the life of 
the nation..... As Washington and Jefferson and particularly Mon- 
roe had broken European bonds and announced to the European na- 
tions that our national policy was ‘America for Americans,’ so the 
organization of the General Synod proclaimed to the religious world 
that the Lutheran Church in this country had reached its majority 
and announced the policy of the ‘Lutheran Church for Lutherans.’ 
One was not more significant than the other. Both were the out- 
growth of the same spirit, the rising American spirit of independence 
and enterprise.” 

52 “Our General Synod,” in the Evangelical Quarterly Review, 
5: 239. In this year the Ministerium of Pennsylvania returned to 
membership in the General Synod. 


226 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


would be an ecclesiastical tyrant. Malicious misrepresen- 
tations were published and dolorous predictions were ut- 
tered. By 1853 opposition had almost entirely subsided. 
“It has proved a great blessing to the Church. From its 
influence the happiest results have flowed.’’** 

However, it must not be thought that it was numerical 
strength of the General Synod in the days of its infancy that 
made possible its recognized influence for good. Numeric- 
ally it was weak. Comprising, as it thought it did in 1823, 
all of the congregations in America with the exception of 
the few congregatons in the Tennessee Conference, it 
claimed to have 


near nine hundred churches and about 175 ministers. Our church, 
which was originally embraced in two independent Synods, has spread 
over so extensive a portion of the United States, that at present we 
have 5 Synods, and shall shortly have several more. 


In 1829°° the first elaborated statistical report was pub- 
lished. How numerically weak the General Synod was is 
to be seen from this. Of the nine synodical bodies in the 
Lutheran Church in America at that time, only three were 
in full membership with the general body; of the 44,998 
communicants reported, only 12,611 were of the Synods in 
membership with the General Synod.*® 

Its influence was rather in the unified front presented, 


53 Ibid. 

54 Minutes, 1828: 9. 

55 Minutes, 1829: 19-29. 

56 While the returns on this report are incomplete for all the 
Synods it would seem that they are most incomplete for those Synods 
in membership with the General Synod. But it is entirely likely that 
a full report would have shown approximately the same proportion. 
A comparison with the numerical strength of the General Assembly 
of the Presbyterian Church is interesting. In 1820 the communi- 
cants of this body numbered 72,096 in over 1299 churches, which were 
supplied by 741 pastors and 108 licentiates—three Presbyteries send- 
ing no report. In 1830 the communicant membership was 173,329 in 
2158 churches, ministered to by 1491 ministers and 220 licentiates.— 
Thompson, op. cit., 93. “In 1829 there were 123 ministers in Synods 
not connected with the General Synod, and 74 within it. In 1834 out 
of 60,971 communicants the General Synod had 20, 249, and the Minis- 
terium of Pennsylvania 26,882.’’—Jacobs, op. cit., 363. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 227 


and the fact of its being a combination of elements from 
different sections of the country, and representing different 
interests. Further, the very claim that it was a general 
body added weight to its position, and gave it a certain ap- 
peal and prestige. Still further, with the exception of the 
attitude of the Synod of Tennessee, the synods which did 
not have membership did not quarrel with the General 
Synod but rather showed the friendliest relations and by 
1853 all were in full membership except the Synods of Ten- 
nessee and Ohio. Though not united in form of organiza- 
tion the various synods, always excepting Tennessee, were 
very close together in view-point and practice.** The Gen- 
eral Synod, by reason of its organization, capitalized this 
general agreement, and exercised a great influence. 

Its influence was further advanced out of proportion to 
its numbers by reason of its practical achievements. The 
most notable of these, to the end of the period considered 
here, was the establishment of a theological seminary 
which rapidly came to dominate the field in the Lutheran 
Church and to contribute much to the growth of the General 
Synod and the spreading of its ideals. This seminary was 
opened in 1826 and had as its single professor, S. S. 
Schmucker, who was elected to this important position in 
1825. It is clear that with Schmucker in charge of the 
Seminary the interests of the General Synod would be well 
eared for.®® <A study of the Minutes of the General Synod, 
1820-29, reveals many forward-looking activities and propo- 
sitions, all of which latter did not materialize. But the Gen- 
eral Synod did accomplish such important things as the es- 
tablishment of a “Committee of Foreign Correspondence,” 
whereby the Church got into touch with the Church in Ger- 
many, it entered into co-operation with such general socie- 
ties as the American Bible Society and the American Tract 


57 Cf. Spaeth, op. cit., 13; Krauth, in Spaeth, op. cit., 14-16; (this 
quoted article was in the Lutheran & Missionary for May 3, 1866, 
“The General Synod.’) 

58 A second professor was installed in 1830. See Wentz, History 
of the Gettysburg Seminary, 1828-1926. 


228 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


Society, it deliberated on matters of practice and recom- 
mended uniformity, and, what is most important for the 
subject here, it developed a complete system of Government 
and Discipline, adopting this in final form in 1829. 


FINAL CONCLUSIONS. 


From all the foregoing it should be clear that the period 
under consideration (1781-1829) was a period of slow 
growth and painful development in the realm of synodical 
polity in the Lutheran Church in America. Before 1781, 
under the leadership of Muehlenberg, a beginning had been 
made in this respect but it was a mere beginning. Into the 
hands of those who came after was delivered the heavy re- 
sponsibility of organizing the Church so that it would be a 
permanent feature in American life and be a real part of 
that life. That the movement was slow is not to be regret- 
ted when it is noted that a successful and acceptable system, 

on a sound Scriptural basis and compatible with American 

ideals, was eventually evolved. Conditions being as they 
were in the Lutheran Church, it could hardly be expected 
that the evolution would be rapid. The use of a foreign 
language, the continual addition of foreign-speaking and 
foreign-thinking pastors and people, the lack of complete 
acquaintance and trust in the ideals of the new nation, the 
social position of the membership of the Church—all these 
contributed to slowing up the process of building a strong 
organization, and of entering heartily into the spirit of the 
times and the place. 

But the desired result was at last accomplished and if it 
was slow in coming, it at least was approached wisely. For 
the same spirit which animated the Fathers of the Church 
in this country also moved their successors. This was the 
spirit of Eclecticism.*® Proceeding on the accepted Lu- 
theran theory of church polity they adopted whatsoever 


59 Schmucker, The Lutheran Church in America, 118 & 9. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 229 


they thought good, no matter what its origin or who its 
sponsor; they discarded what they thought to be wrong, no 
matter what its traditional authority or earlier wide prac- 
tice. 

When it is kept in mind that the framers.of the principles 
of the synodical polity—and the same may also be said of 
the doctrinal position assumed—were pioneering; that they 
were confronted with conditions new for the Lutheran 
Church, meeting these conditions under adverse circum- 
stances, it is to explain a great deal of the weakness, laxity, 
and mistaken practices charged against them. To expect 
these framers to evolve such a system and to institute such 
practices as bodies and groups later evolved and instituted, 
and to make the failures in these respects the basis for hy- 
percritical attacks upon their wisdom and Lutheranism, is 
to be unhistorical, as well as unfair. These framers laid 
the foundations; they made the mistakes which others com- 
ing later could avoid, and thus build strongly upon the 
foundations. When the later almost overwhelming Lu- 
theran immigration from Northern Europe poured into the 
United States, well it was that the experience before 1829 
had been lived through. 

Another general conclusion, but this a negative one, is 
that it does not appear from the sources studied that the in- 
fluence of the frontier, so potent in affecting American in- 
stitutions, had a direct effect upon the development of the 
synodical polity of the Lutheran Church before 1829. This 
does not, however, ignore the effects and influences of the 
first frontier or even of later frontiers indirectly upon the 
matter here studied.*° Nor does it ignore both the direct 
and indirect effects of the frontier upon the Lutheran 
Church in other respects. The Church grew and was in- 
fluenced by the Westward Movement. But, up to 1829, the 
western sections of the Lutheran Church were not import- 


60 The refusal of the Synods of Ohio and of Tennessee to support 
the General Synod was partly due to the effect exerted upon them by 
the frontier life and spirit. 


230 The Development of the Synodical Polity . 


ant, either in point of numbers or influence. The synodical 
polity developed under the leadership of eastern men to 
meet eastern needs. In the practice of Hclecticism, how- 
ever, the influences of the earlier frontier life and spirit as 
these affected the various forces which contributed to guide 
the Lutheran organizers should not be forgotten. But they 
are not the subjects of consideration at this point. It 
must be remembered that whatsoever was Lutheran at first 
was purely Huropean, and as such, of course, had to be 
adapted to the new life in America. The influence of the 
West upon the Lutheran Church generally was to come in 
the years following 1840. After that time the western sec- 
tion of the Church began to be of greater importance and 
influence. Much of this influence was to be American, of 
the frontier; much, on the other hand, was to be European, 
brought with those who came in 1840 and afterward. Of 
this latter influence there remained, and remains to the 
present much that would not be adapted to American life. 
Such, however, was not the spirit of Muehlenberg, nor of 
the great division of the Church which looks to him as its: 
founder. 


_61_ But see Chapter II. and on the whole subject, Mode, The Fron- 
tier Spirit in American Christianity. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 231 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


NOTE. 


The sources from which the materials for this disserta- 
tion were drawn are to be found mainly in the Library of 
the Lutheran Historical Society which is in the main build- 
ing of the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, 
Pa. The materials in this valuable collection are fairly 
accessible. The kind of material found to be most useful 
and important for this work was the collection of printed 
minutes, constitutions, and other documents of the various 
district synods and of the General Synod. The hand-writ- 
ten protocol of the General Synod, in complete form, is de- 
posited there, as well as a valuable collection of manuscript 
letters, reports, etc. This Library is undoubtedly the most 
important and most complete depository of American Lu- 
theran historical materials in existence. Its periodical file 
is virtually complete. 

Another important depository, and one which has been 
employed in this work, is the Krauth Memorial Library at 
the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. Here 
is kept the valuable Archive Collection of the Ministerium 
of Pennsylvania. This is carefully catalogued and ar- 
ranged. Inasmuch as the really important and unique ma- 
terials in these Archives are for the period prior to the chief 
interest of this dissertation this Collection was of little 
practical value to the writer. For the later period what is 
of greatest value was also to be found at Gettysburg. 

In addition to the Library of the Historical Society the 
Library of the Theological Seminary at Gettysburg was 
most useful for its supply of secondary works, files of peri- 
odicals, encyclopedias, etc. 

Much manuscript material of the highest importance for 
the history of the Lutheran Church in America for the 
period here considered is doubtless to be found scattered in 
many places. The above depositories represent the only 
important places for the gathering and the safe preserva- 
tion of such, however. As for printed materials of primary 
character, the Lutheran Historical Society has been en- 
tirely adequate and sufficient, representing as it does the 
most complete collection of such materials to be found any- 
where. 


232 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


GUIDES. 


ALLISON, W. H. Inventory of Unpublished Material for 
American Religious History in Protestant Church Ar- 
chives and Other Repositories. Published by the Car-. 
negie Institution of Washington. 1910. 

KRAUSHAAR, C. O. Verfassungsformen der Lutherischer 
Kirche Amerikas.. Guetersloh. 1911. Contains in. 
convenient form the most important constitutions; 
forms an outline for study. 

MCGLOTHLIN, W. J. A Guide to the Study of Church His-. 
tory. New York. 1914. 

MopE, P. G. Source Book and Bibliographical Guide for 
American Church History. Menasha. 1921. The 
best general guide. Not very satisfactory for a deeper 
study of the Lutheran Church. 

Morris, J. G. Sources of Information on the History of 
the Lutheran Church in America,” in The Lutheran 
Church Review, Vol. 14:165-86. 

Excellent Bibliographies are to be found in each volume of 
The American Church History Series. 18 vols. New 
York. 1893-7. A co-operative work of great value 
and merit. The best general treatment of American 
Religious History. 


PRIMARY SOURCES: 
MANUSCRIPT: 


SCHMUCKER, S. 8S. “Extracts from My Lectures on the 
History of the General Synod, delivered in the Semi- 
nary. Lecture II.” Date not given. 

Ibid. “Formula for the Government and Discipline of the 
Evangelic Lutheran Churches in Maryland and Vir- 
ginia.” Endorsed, “N. B. This is the original auto- 
graph from which the present generally received For- 
mula of the Lutheran Church was printed. S. S. 8S.” 
(See below for description of printed copies of the 
sHormiula.e)e 

Ibid. Miscellaneous Private Papers including Journal, Oc- 
casional Journal, Memoranda, etc. (All fragmen- 
tary,) 1816-24. Loaned by the Rev. Prof. W. A. Sadt- 
ler. All this material is printed in Anstadt, Life and 
Times of the Rev. S. S. Schmucker, D.D., q. v. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 233 


PRINTED COLLECTIONS: 


CALVIN, JOHN. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 
Trans. by H. Beveridge. 3 vols. Edinburgh. 1845-6. 

“Constitutions, II.” Miscellaneous Constitutions, 1818-77. 
In the Lutheran Historical Society. 

Documentary History of the Evangelical Lutheran Minis- 
terium of Pennsylvania and Adjacent States. (1748- 
1821). Published officially by the Ministerium of 
Pennsylvania. Authoritative. Contains a translation 
of the entire “Protocol,” 1781-1821. Philadelphia. 
1898. 

Documentary History of the General Council of the Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Church in North America. Philadel- 
phia. 1912. 

“Gotwald Collection,” volume in the Lutheran Historical 
Society marked ‘‘Kirchliche Dokumente.” Miscellane- 
ous Minutes of Synods. 

JACOBS, H. E. (Editor). The Book of Concord, with His- 
torical Introduction, Notes, etc. 2 vols. Philadelphia. 
1882-3. 

LUTHER, MARTIN. Dr. Martin Luther’s deutsche Schrif- 
ten. Erlangen-Frankfurter Ausgabe. 67 vols. 1883. 
Tomus Secondus Omnium Operum Reverendi Patris, 
viri Det D. Martinus Lutherus, ete. Jenae. 1581. 
Works of Martin Luther. “Philadelphia Edition.” 2 
vols. 1915. 

“Lutheran Church in America,” volume so marked in the 
Lutheran Historical Society. Miscellaneous Addresses, 
Sketches, etc. 

Minutes of Synods, including other printed papers and tran- 
scripts, volumes in the Lutheran Historical Society 
marked as follows: 

“Pennsylvania Ministerium, 1813-42,” Contains Dve 
Ministerial Ordnung, 1818. German and English. 
“Pennsylvania Ministerium, 1843-1853.” German 
and English. 

“Pennsylvania Ministerium, 1854-1862.” German and 
English. 

“Pennsylvania Ministerium, 1892-1894.” 

“New York Ministerium, 1817-43,” Mainly printed 
copies of Minutes, with several hand-written tran- 
scripts. Also contains the Constitution of 1816. 
“North Carolina Synod, 1803-26.” Contains Peschau’s 


234 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


translation of the German ‘‘Protocol,” and miscellane- 
ous Reports of Conferences, etc., German. 

“North Carolina Synod, 1825-57.” Some missing. 
“Synod of North Carolina, 1816-56.” Reports and Min- 
utes. German and English. 

“Tennessee Synod, 1820-1852.” Reports, and other 
papers. German and English. 

“Synod of Maryland, 1820-47.” Minutes and Proceed- 
ings. German and English. 

“Maryland Synod, Minutes, 1824-30; 1915-23, etc.” 
Mainly printed copies but also some type-written tran- 
scripts. 

“South Carolina Synod, 1824-56,” Proceedings and Ex- 
tracts from the Minutes. Some missing. 

“Synod of Virginia, 1831-60.” Mainly printed copies 
but also some type-written transcripts. 

“Morris, the John G., Collection,” volumes marked 
“Minutes of Synod, I & Il.” In the Lutheran Histori- 
cal Society. Miscellaneous Minutes of Synods, and 
other papers. 

Nachrichten von der vereinigten Deutschen Evangelisch- 
Lutherischen Gemeinen in Nord-Amerika. W. J. Mann 
and B. M. Schmucker, Editors. New Edition. 2 vols. 
Allentown. 1886 & 1895. Usually cited, “The Hal- 
lesche Nachrichten.” The chief printed source for the 
German Lutheran Church History in Pennsylvania, 
1730-85. Materials collected from the Archives at 
Halle; accurate and fairly complete for most matters; 
excellent notes by the Editors. Not, however, of great 
importance for this work as the period of research here 
is later than that covered by the “Nachrichten.” The 
first several parts of this have been translated into 
English by C. W. Schaeffer. Halle Reports, Philadel- 
Dhiasenl soa 

“Pamphlets, Vol. II,’ volume in the Lutheran Historical So- 
ciety so marked. 

SCHAFF, P. (Editor). The Creeds of Christendom, with a 
History and Critical Notes. 4th Edition. 3 vols. New 
York. 1884. 

“Schmucker, Collection,’ volume in the Lutheran Histori- 
cal Society marked “Vol. III.” Miscellaneous Minutes 
of Synods, Addresses, Constitutions, ete. 

Ibid. “‘I,,” Miscellaneous Minutes, ete. 

Ibid. “Ecclesiastical Documents, Vol. V.” Minutes and 


’ 


of the Lutheran Church in America 235 


Constitutions of the New York Ministerium, 1816-29. 
Some missing. 

Ibid. “Ecclesiastical Documents, Vol. XI.’ Miscellaneous 
Minutes. 

Ibid. “Ecclesiastical Documents, Vol. IV.” Miscellaneous 
Minutes, and other papers. 

Ibid. “I,” Miscellaneous Minutes and Formulae of 
Government and Discipline. 

Ibid. ‘“TI.1’ Miscellaneous Minutes, Constitutions, ete. 


PRINTED SPECIAL: 


Constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran General Synod in 
the United States of America; together with the Pro- 
ceedings of the Convention in which It was Formed. 
Trans. from the German by C. Endress. Lancaster, 
N. D. No. 3, in “Schmucker Collection,” marked “I,1.” 
This was Schmucker’s personal copy and contains no- 
tations in his own hand. 

Formula for the Government and Discipline of the Evan- 
gelic Lutheran Churches in Maryland and Virginia. 
Prederick® “G.OeW ie oharp,» Printer: Nov."8* in 
“Schmucker Collection,” marked “I.11,” endorsed in 
Schmucker’s hand. “Printed at the individual expense 
of S. S. Schmucker and Dr. F. Schaeffer for the con- 
venience of the General Synod,” 18238. 

No. 11 of the same collection, a German copy. 1824. 
No. 13 of the volume in ‘“Schmucker Collection,” 
marked “I.1,” Hagers-Town. William D. Bell, printer. 
1824. 

No. 14, Jbid. A German copy. Gettysburg, 1828. 
The same Formula but printed and used by the West 
Pennsylvania Synod. 

HENKEL, D., An Oration. Salisbury. 1821. In “Pamph- 
lets, Vol. II.”’ Published as a precaution against a plan 
for a General Synod. 

“Dr. Kunze on the Lutheran Church,” a reprint of the Ap- 
pendix to the “Hymn and Prayer-Book,” edited by 
Kunze, New York, 1795, in The Lutheran Church Re- 
view, 5:292-301. 

LUTHER, MARTIN, Von den Concilits und Kirchen. Trans. 
by C. B. Smyth. London. 1847. 

Minutes, Proceedings, Reports, and Extracts from the Min- 
utes of District Synods and Conferences. 


236 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


The Ministerium of New York: 


NICUM, J., “Auszug der wichtigsten Verhandlungen und 
Beschluesse aus den Protokellen des Ministeriums,” 
pages 401-67 in Geschichte des Evangelisch-Lutheris- 
chen Ministeriums vom Staate New York, etc. Read- 
ing. 1888. 

“New York Ministerium, 1817-1843.” Of which the fol- 
lowing were used: 

The Constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran Minis- 
terium of the State of New York and Adjacent States 
and Countries; Revised and Adopted in General (sic) 
Synod, Sept. 3, A. D. 1816. Philadelphia, 1816. 
“Minutes, New York Ministerium,” Claverack. 1817. 
Hand-written transcript. 

“Minutes, 7bid.” Albany, N. Y. 1818. Hand-written 
transcript. 

Proceedings of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of the 
State of New York, etc., 1819. Albany. 1819. 
“Minutes, New York Ministerium,” Germantown, N. 
Y. 1820. Hand-written transcript. 

Extracts from the Minutes of the Synod of the Lu- 
theran Church in the State of New York, etc., 1821. 
Albany. 1821. 

“Minutes, New York Ministerium,” Schoharie, N. Y. 
1822. Hand-written transcript. 

Extracts from the Minutes of the Synod of the Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Church in the State of New York, ete. 
18238. New York. 1823. 

Extracts from the Minutes of the Synod and Minister- 
wum of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the State of 
New York, etc; ©1824. \ New York. ~ 1825. 

Extracts from the Minutes of the XXX Session of the 
Synod and Ministerium of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church in the State of New York, etc. 1825. Troy. 
1azZo: 

LOI A ASZ6s elroy sme S26: 

[DULL S274 LTO Oe 

Ibid. 1828. Johnstown. 1829. 

Minutes of Thirty Fourth Session of the Evangelical 
Lutheran Ministerium of the State of New York, etc. 
1829. Cooperstown. 1829. 


of the Lutheran Church in America Zot 


The Ministerium of Pennsylvania: 


Documentary History, etc. “Proceedings of the Annual 
Conventions from 1784 to 1821.” Compiled and 
Translated from Records in the Archives and from the 
Written Protocols. Philadelphia. 1898. 

“Pennsylvania Ministerium, 1813-1842.” Of which the fol- 
lowing were used: 

Die Ministerial-Ordnung der Deutschen Evangelisch- 
Lutherischen Gemeinen in Pennsylvanien, u. s. w.” 
Philadelphia. 1818. 

Verhandlungen der Deutschen Evangelisch-Lutheris- 
chen Synode von Pennsylvanien, u. s. w., 1818. Lan- 
caster. 

Ibid.. 1819. Allentown, 1819. 

Ibid.. 1820. Allentown. 1820. 

Ibid.. 1821. Reading. 

Ibid... 1824. Reading. 1824. 

Ibid.. 1825.. Reading 1825. 

Proceedings of the (78th) German Evangelical Lu- 
theran Synod of Pennsylvania. 1826 Easton. 1826. 
Ibid.. 1828. Easton. 1828. 

Verhandlungen der Deutschen Evangeltsch-Lutheris- 
chen Synode von Pennsylvanien. 1829. Philadelphia. 
1829. 

“Schmucker Collection,” volume marked “Vol. III,” of 
which the following were used: 

No. 18. Verhandlungen der Deutsch-Evangelisch-Lu- 
therischen Synode von Pennsylvanien, 1822. Reading. 
(Autographed, “Sam/’! S. Schmucker.’’) 

NOM ae LOI ioe ae heading: 

To the last page of this is attached a paper endorsed 
in the hand of S. S. Schmucker, ‘‘N. B. These are the 
autograph resolutions written by S. S. Schmucker at 
York in 1823, when he, Dr. George Schmucker and 
Revd. John Herbst held consultation together there. See 
Minutes of the Special Conference held at York, Octo- 
ber the 6th & 7th, 1823.” 

No. 15. Verhandlungen der Special-Conferenz; ge- 
halten zu Yorktaun, auf den 6ten und 7ten October 
1828, and (Circular-Schreiben), “Stadt York, den 7 
October, 1823.” “York, gedruckt bei H. C. Nein- 
stedt.”’ 

No. 16. Verhandlungen der Special-Conferenz; ge- 
halten zu Greencastle, den 7ten, Sten, und 9ten Novem- 
ber, 1824. 


238 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


“The John G. Morris Collection,” volume marked “Minutes 
of Synod, II,” of which the following was used: 
No. 6. Minutes of the German Evangelical Lutheran 
Synod of Pennsylvania, 1829. Philadelphia. 1829. 
“Pennsylvania Ministerium, 1843-1853,” of which the fol- 
lowing was used: 
Minutes of the 106th Annual Session of the German 
Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium of Pennsylvania 
and the Adjacent States. Sumnytown. 1853. 
“Pennsylvania Ministerium,” 1854-1862,” of which the fol- 
lowing was used: 
Minutes of the 107th Annual Session of the German 
Evangelical Lutheran Ministeritum of Pennsylvania 
and the Adjacent States. Sumnytown. 1854. 
“Pennsylvania Ministerium, 1892-1894,” of which the fol- 
lowing was used: 
Minutes of the 145th Annual Convention of the EHvan- 
gelical Lutheran Ministerium of Pennsylvania and the 
Adjacent States, 1892. Reading. 


The Synod of North Carolina: 


Minutes of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of North Caro- 
lina, from 1803-26, ete.” Translated from the German 
Protocol by F. W. E. Peschau. Newberry. 1894. 

Bound with the above are the following which were 
used: 
Kurzer Bericht von den Conferenzen der Vereinigten 
Evangelisch-Lutherischen Predigern und Abgeordne- 
ten mn dem Staat Nord-Carolina vom Jahr 1803, bis 
zum Jahr 1810. Newmarket, 1811. 
Verhandlungen, 1813. Title-page destroyed. 
Kurze Nachrichten von den Verrichtungen des Deutsch 
und Englischen Lutherischen Synode, fur Nord-Caro- 
lina, etc. 1819. Baltimore. 1819. 
Verrichtungen der EHvangelisch-Lutherischen Synode 
fur Nord-Carolina, etc. 1822. Philadelphia. 1822. 

“Synod of North Carolina, 1816-56,” of which the following 
were used: 

Bericht der Verrichtungen wahrend des Synode des 
Lutherischen Ministeriums, gehalten im Staat Nord 
Carolina, etc. 1816. New Market. 1817. 

Kurzer Auszug von den Verrichtungen der Synode, des 
Lutherischen Ministeriums, gehalten im Staat Nord 
Carolina, 1817. New Market. 1818. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 239 


Auszug von den Verrichtungen der Deutsch und Eng- 
lisch Lutherischen Synode fur Nord-Carolina, ete. 
1820. Baltimore. 
Verrichtungen der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Synode 
fur Nord-Carolina, etc. 1827. Philadelphia. 1827. 
Verhandlungen der Hvangelischen-Lutherischen 
Synode, von Nord-Carolina, etc. 1828. Salem. 1828. 
Minutes of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of North 
Carolina, etc. 1829. Salisbury. 1829. 
“North Carolina Synod, 1825-57,” of which the following 
was used: 
Transactions of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod for 
North Carolina, etc. 1825. Salisbury. 1825. 
“Schmucker Collection,” volume marked, ‘Ecclesiastical 
Taam oe Vol. IV,” of which the following were 
used: 
No. 7. Verrichtungen der Evangelisch-Lutherischen 
Synode fur Nord-Carolina, etc. 1828. Salisbury. 
1823. 
No. 8. Verhandlungen der Evangelisch-Lutherischen 
Synode fur Nord-Carolina, etc. 1824. Philadelphia. 
1824. 


The Synod of Ohio: 


“Schmucker Collection,” volume marked “1,1,” of which 
the following were used: | 
No. 14. Verrichtungen der Vierten General-Confer- 
enze, Der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Prediger in Ohio, 
etc. 1821. No title page. 
No. 15. Ibid. “der Funften,’ 1822. No title page. 
No. 16. Ibid. “der Sechsten,”’ 1823. No title page. 
No. 17. Ibid. “der siebenten,” 1824. No title page. 
No. 21. Proceedings of the Twelfth Synodical Meet- 
ing of the Evangelical Lutheran Ministers, of Ohio, 
etc. 1829. Lancaster. 1829. 

“Schmucker Collection,” volume marked “Ecclesiastical 
Documents, Vol. XI., of which the following were used: 
No. 17. Proceedings of the Tenth Evangelical Lu- 
theran Synod of Ohio, etc. 1827. No title page. 
No. 16. Proceedings of the Hleventh Synodical Meet- 
in; of the Evangelical Lutheran Minsters, of Ohio, 
etc. 1828. Lancaster. 1828. 


240 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


The following transcripts (type-written) were used: 
“Verrichtungen der ersten General Conferenz der 
Evangelisch-Lutherischen Prediger in Ohio, etc,” (Lan- 
caster (Ohio), Gedruckt bey Johann Herman, 1818). 
This includes also “Hrlkaerung der Ministerial- 
Siegels”; “Hrinnerungs-Zuschrift,” by “den benamten 
und uebrigzen glieder der Synode.”’ 
Ibid. Der Zwueyten.”’ (Lancaster (Ohio) : gedrucket 
bey Johann Herman. 1819). 

This includes also a report of a “‘Special-Conferenz” 
held 6-8 June, 1819. 
Ibid. “der Dritten,” 1820. 
“Verrichtungen der Achten Evangelich-Lutherischen 
Synode von Ohio, ete.” 1825. 

This includes also a report of a “‘Special-Conferenz,”’ 
held 6 Sept. 1824. 
Ibid. “der Neunten,” 1826. 

Contain “Geographiche Nachrichten” and “‘Prediger- 
lose gemeinen,” statistical reports. 


The Tennessee Synod: 


“Tennessee Synod, 1820-1852,” of which the following were 
used: 
Bericht von den Verrichtungen der ersten Conferenz, 
der Deutschen Evangelisch-Lutherischen Prediger, und 
Abgeordneten, gehalten in dem Staat Tennessee, etc. 
1820. No title page. 

With this are bound a lengthy address “to the 
reader” justifying the action of the meetings; a 
treatise, ““Von der heiligen Taufe’; a treatise, ‘Vom 
Plan-Entwurf”’; “Bedenklichen Ursachen,” a protest 
of certain Lutheran ministers in Ohio against the 
“Plan-Entwurf,” and “Die Augsburgische Confession,” 
text and remarks. | 
Report of the Transactions, of the Second Evangelical 
Lutheran Conference,...., Tennessee, the 22d. of Oc- 
tober 1821, also Two Letters, and the Objections 
against the Constitution of the General Synod. New 
Market. 1821. 

Report of the Transactions of the Third German Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Synod of Tennessee, etc. 1822 New 
Market. 1823. 

Bericht von den Verrichtungen der 5ten Deutschen 


of the Lutheran Church in America 241 


Kvangelisch-Lutherischen Conferenz von Tennessee, 
etc. 1824. New Market. 1824. 
Report of the Transactions of the 6th. German Evan- 
gelic Lutheran Synod of Tennessee, etc. 1825. New 
Market. 
Ibid. (7th.) 1826. New Market. 

“Schmucker Collection,” volume marked “I,”’ of which the 
following were used: 
No. 2. Bericht von den Verrichtungen der 4ten Deut- 
schen, Hvangelisch-Lutherischen Conferenz von Ten- 
nessee, etc. 1823. New Market. 18238. 
No. 9. Report of the Transactions of the Hvangelical 
Lutheran Tennessee Synod during their Eighth Ses- 
sion, etc. 1827. New Market. 1827. 

Contains the proposed Constitution. 

No. tl. Report of the Transactions....Ninth Session, 
etc., also the Constitution which was then adopted and 
ratified, etc. 1828. New Market. 1828. 
No. 12. Report of the Transactions...... Tenth Ses- 
sion, etc. 1829. New Market. 1829. 


The Synod of Maryland and Virginia: 


“Synod of Maryland, 1820-47,” of which the following were 
used: 

Proceedings of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of 
Maryland, Virginia, ete. For the year 1820. 

Ibid. For the year 1821. Baltimore. 

Ibid. For the year 1822. Baltimore. 1822. 

Minutes of the Session of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Synod of Maryland and Virginia, etc. 1823. Baltimore. 
1824. 

Ibid. 1824. York. 1825. 

“Maryland Synod, Minutes, 1824-30, 1915-23, etc,” of which 
the following were used: is 
“Minutes of the Synod of Maryland and Virginia. 
1825.” Type-written transcript. 

“Minutes of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Mary- 
land and Virginia, ete. 1826.” Type-written tran- 
script. 

Ibid. 1827 

Ibid. 1828. 

Ibid. 1829. 


242 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


The Synod of South Carolina: 


“South Carolina Synod, 1824-56,” of which the following 
were used: 
Proceedings of the (1st) Evangelical Lutheran Synod 
of South Carolina, etc. 1824. Charleston. 1825. 
Ibid. (2nd.) 1825. Savannah. 1825. 
Ibid. 1832. Charleston. 1831. 

“The John G. Morris Collection,” volume marked ‘Minutes 
of Synod, 2,” of which the following was used: 
No. 4. Proceedings of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Synod of South Carolina, etc. 1828. Savannah. 1829. 


The Synod of West Pennsylvania: 


“Schmucker Collection,” volume marked ‘Ecclesiastical 
Documents, No. XI,” of which the following were used: 
No. 22. Minutes of the Synod and Ministerium of the 
Evangelical Lutheran Church, west of the Susquehan- 
neh in the State of Pennsylvama. 1825. York. 1825. 
No. 2. Minutes of the Sixth Synod of the Evangelical 
Lutheran Church of West Pennsylvania. 1830.. Get- 
tysburg. 1831. 

No. 6. Minutes of the Highth Session of the Evangeli- 
cal Lutheran Synod of West Pennsylvania. 1832. Get- 
tysburg. 1838. 

“Gotwald Collection,’ volume marked, “Kirchliche Doku- 
mente,” of which the following were used: 

No. 4. Minutes of the Synod and Ministerium of the 
Evangelical Lutheran Church, West of the Susquehan- 
nah in the State of Pensylvania. 1826. Carlisle. 1827. 
No. 6. Minutes of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of 
West Pennsylvania. 1827. Gettysburg. 1827. 

No. 7. Minutes of the Fifth Annual Session of the 
Evangelical Lutheran Synod of West Pennsylvania. 
1829. Gettysburg. 1830 

No. 10. Ibid. (Seventh) 1831. Gettysburg. 1832. 


The Synod of Virginia: 


““Schmucker Collection,” volume marked “I.1,”’ of which 
the following was used: 
No. 18. Verrichtungen einer Conferenz gehalten zu 
Woodstock, 1828. New Market. 1828. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 243 


“Synod “ Virginia, 1831-60,” of which the following were 
used: 
“Proceedings of the Evangelical Lutheran Conference 
held at Woodstock, Virginia, August 10 & 11, 1829.” 
Type-written transcript. 
“Minutes of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Vir- 
ginia, etc. 1830.” Type-written transcript. 
An Extract from the Minutes of the Evangelical Lu- 
theran Synod and Ministerium of the State of Virginia, 
etc. 1881. Staunton. 18382. 
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Evangelical Lu- 
theran Synod of the State of Virginia, etc. 1832. Win- 
chester. 1883. 


The General Synod: 


“Minutes, Lutheran General Synod, 1819-1859, Vol.I.” 
Complete collection of printed Minutes. After 1829 
the Minutes become Proceedings. The collection is 
especially valuable because of the inclusion of import- 
ant reports, etc., printed with the Minutes. The hand- 
written ‘Protocol,’ from which these Minutes have 
been printed is preserved complete in the Lutheran 
Historical Society, and has been consulted in order to 
verify the printed editions on certain important points. 
The collection is described as follows: 

Plan-Entwurf zu einer Central-Verbindung der Eng- 
lisch-Lutherischen Kirche in den Vereinigten Staates 
von Nord-Amerika. Baltimore. 1819. 
Grundverfassung der Evangelisch Lutherischen Gen- 
eral-Synode in den Vereinigten Staaten von Nord- 
Amerika, nebst dem Protokoll der Versammlung, dte 
sie entworfen, (Oct. 22, 1820.) Baltimore. 

Minutes of the General Synod of the Evangelical Lu- 
theran Church, in the United States, etc., Oct 21, 22, 23, 
1821. Lancaster. 1821. 

Minutes of the Proceedings of the General Synod of the 
Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States, etc., 
Octa1s23. wy ork, 1823: 

Ibid. October, 1825. Frederick. 1825. 

Ibid. October, 1827. Gettysburg. 1827. 

Ibid. October, 1829. Gettysburg. 1829. 


244 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


The United Lutheran Church in America: 


Minutes of the First Convention of the United Lu- 
theran Church in America. Nov. 14-18, 1918. Phila- 
delphia. 1919. 

Contains the Constitution of the United Lutheran 
Church. 

SHOBER, G. “A Review of a Pamphlet by David Henkel. 
Salisbury, N. C., 1821, and An Extract from the Ra- 
leigh Star of May 19, 1820.” Type-written transcript 
from a printed copy now in the Library of Roanoke 
College, Salem, Va. 


SECONDARY WORKS: 
General History of the United States: 


CHANNING, E. AHistory of the United States. 6 vols.. (In 
progress). New York. 1905—. 

CHEYNEY, E. P. Huropean Background of American His- 
tory. Vol. I of the American Nation: A History. New 
York. 28 vols. 1904-7. 

Faust, A. B. The German Element in the United States. 
2 vols. Boston and New York. 1909. 

HOCKHETT, H. E. Political and Social History of the United 
States, 1492-1828. New York. ay. 

MCMASTER, J. B. History of the People of the United 
States from the Revolution to the Civil War. 8 vols. 
New York. 1883-1913 

SCHLESINGER, A. M. New Viewpoints in American His- 
tory. New York. 1922. 


General Church History; European Church History; 
Church Polity: 


BAYLES, G. J. “Church and State,” in The New Schaff- 
Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. S. M. 
Jackson, Editor. Vol. III:105-112. 12 vols. and in- 
dex. New York and London. 1911. 

BRANDT, History of the Reformation and Other Ecclesiasti- 
cal Transactions in and about the Low Countries. Eng- 
lish Translation. 4 vols. London. 1720. 

BURCKHARDT, J. G. Kirchen-Geschichte des Deutschen 
Gemeinden in London. Tuebingen. 1798. 

CLUTZ, J. A. “Lectures on Church Polity.” Pamphlet for 
class use. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 245 


DECKER, T. C. ‘“‘Luther’s Theory of the Right of the Tem- 
poral Authorities to Reform the Church,” in The Lu- 
theran Church Review. Vol. 37:334-63. 

DUCHESNE, MON. L. Early History of the Christian 
Church. Rendered into English for the 4th Ed. 2 
vols. New York. 1912-15. 

FISHER, G. P. The Reformation. New York. 1906. 

FRIEDBERG, E. Lehrbuch des Katholischen und Evange- 
lischen Kirchenrechts. Leipzig. 1879. 

GAYFORD, 8. C. “Church,” in A Dictionary of the Bible, 
James Hastings, Editor, Vol. 1:425-39. 5 vols. New 
York. 1898-1904. 

GIESELER, J. C. L. <A Text-Book of Church History. 5 
vols. Vol. IV. Trans. by H. B. Smith. New York. 
1868-80. 

HAGENBUCH, K. R. History of the Church in the 18th. & 
19th. Centuries. Trans. from the last German Edi- 
HOD, with additions by J. F. Hurst. 2 vols. New York. 

869. 

HARNACK, A. The Constitution and Law of the Church in 
the First Two Centuries. Trans. by F. L. Pogson & 
H. D. A. Major. New York. 1910. 

HARNACK, A. “The Organization of the Early Church,” in 
The ‘New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge. Vol. 8:259-67. 

HATCH, E. The Organization of the Early Christian 
Churches. London. 1892. 

Hauck, A. “Councils and Synods,” in The New Schaff- 
Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III: 
279-84 

JACOBS, C. M. “The Genesis of Luther’s Doctrine of the 
Church,“ in The Lutheran Church Review, Vol. 34:141- 
152. 

Ibid. “The Development of Luther’s Doctrine of the 
as ? in The Lutheran Church Review, Vol. 34 :203- 


ee H. E. “Church Polity,” in The Lutheran Cyclope- 
dia, H. E. Jacobs, and J. A. W. Haas, Editors, 102-7. 
New York. 1899. 

Ibid. “Notes on ‘Kirchenregiment’? by Th. Harnack.” 
Pamphlet prepared for class use. 

KOESTLIN, J. The Theology of Luther. Trans. from the 
Second German Edition by C. E. Hay. 2 vols. Phila- 
delphia. 1897. 


246 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


KRAUTH, CHARLES PORTERFIELD, “Church Polity,” in The 
Lutheran Church Review, Vol. 11:3807-23; II1:139- 
51, 320-34; IV :55-68. 

Ibid. The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology. 
Philadelphia. 1871. 

KROTEL, G. F. “The Polity of the Lutheran Church, as 
Signified in the Confessions,” Article VIII in The Es- 
says, Debates, and Proceedings of the Second Free Lu- 
theran Diet in America, Philadelphia, Nov. 5-7, 1878. 
Philadelphia. 1879. 

LINDSAY, T. M. The Church and the Ministry in the Early 
Centuries. 4th. Ed. London. 1910. 

Ibid. A History of the Reformation. 2 vols. New York. 
1906-7 


LOWRIE, WALTER. The Church and Its Organization. New 
York. 1904. 

MOSHEIM, J. L. Ecclesiastical History. Trans. by A. 
MacLaine. 6 vols. Charlestown. 1811. 

VON RANKE, L. Aistory of the Reformation in Germany. 
Trans. by S. Austin; edited by R. A. Johnson. London. 
1905. 

RICHARD, J. W. The Confessional History of the Lutheran 
Church. Philadelphia. 1909. 

Ibid. “Lectures on Church Polity.” Manuscript. 

RICHTER, L. Geschichte der evangelischen Kirchenverfas- 
sung in Deutschland. Leipzig. 1851. 

ScCHAFF, P. History of the Christian Church. 7 vols. 
New York. 1867-92. 

SCHMAUK, T. E. & BENZE, C. T. The Confessional Princi- 
ple and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church. Phila- 
delphia. 1911. 

SEHLING, E. “Church Government,” in The New Schaff- 
Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III: 
92-6. 

Ibid. “Collegialism,” in /bid., Vol. III :159-60. 

Ibid. “Territorialism,” in Ibid. Vol. X1:303. 

SHELDON, H.C. “Ecclesiastical Polity,” in Ibid., Vol. IX: 
LIE 

SMITH, P. The Age of the Reformation. New York. 1920. 

SOHM, R. Kirchenrecht. 1st. vol. only. Leipzig. 1892. 

SPAETH, A. “Luther’s Doctrine of the Church,” in The Lu- 
theran Church Review, Vol. 16:272-86. 

TROELTSCH, E. Protestantism and Progress. Trans. by 
W. Montgomery. London & New York. 1912. 

WORDSWORTH, JOHN. The National Church of Sweden. 
London. 1911. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 247 


General Religious History of the United States: 


BACON, L. W. A History of American Christianity.. Vol. 
XIII of The American Church History Series. New 
York. 1897. The best single volume general work 
available. 

BAIRD, ROBERT. Religion in America, or, An Account of 
the Origin, Relation to the State, and Present Condi- 
tion of the Evangelical Churches in the United States. 
New York. 1856. 

Still a very valuable work. Baird was a personal 
friend of S. S. Schmucker and his treatment of the Lu- 
theran Church is taken from Schmucker’s works. 

DORCHESTER, D. Christianity in the United States; from 
the First Settlement down to the Present Time. 1887. 

Important as a volume of massive content and broad 
information, but very badly arranged and difficult to 


use. 
HUMPHREY, E. F. Nationalism and Religion in America, 
1774-89. Boston. 1924. 

A scientific work of high character. It might be 
called an interpretation of American History from the 
religious viewpoint. 

JAMESON, J. F. “The American Acta Sanctorum,” in the 
American Historical Review, Vol. 13 :286-302. 

MopvkE, P.G. The Frontier Spirit in American Christianity. 
New York. 1928. 

An application of the “Turner Thesis” to the de- 
velopment of Christianity in the United States. Verv 
suggestive. 


The Lutheran Church in America: 


ACRELIUS, ISRAEL. A History of New Sweden. Trans. by 
W.M. Reynolds. Philadelphia. 1874. 

APPENDIX I. “The Office of Over-sight in the Lutheran 
Church,” in the Minutes of the 145th. Annual Conven- 
tion of the Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium of Penn- 
sylvania and Adjacent States. (1892). 

Appendix to the Appellants’ Paper Book, in the Supreme 
Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District. No. 16, May 
Term, 1922. U.G. Nagle, et. al., Deacons of the Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Church of the Holy Communion of 
Harrisburg, Pa., Plaintiffs, vs. Rev. John H. Miller, et. 


248 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


al., Defendants. Appeal of the Defendants from the 
Decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin 
County, Pa. No. 637, Equity Docket, in Equity. Valu- 
able for the testimony of expert witnesses in points of 
Polity of the United Lutheran Church in America, in 
particular, and of the Lutheran Church, in general. 

BENTE, F. American Lutheranism. Vol. I Harly History 

of American Lutheranism and the Tennessee Synod. St. 
Louis. 1919. Mainly taken from Graebner, q. v. 
Vol. Il. The United Lutheran Church. St. Louis. 
1919. Written from the viewpoint of an opponent of 
that part of the Lutheran Church in America which 
grew out of ‘“‘“Muehlenberg Development.” 

BERNHEIM, G. D. A History of the German Settlements 
and the Lutheran Church in North and South Carolina. 
Philadelphia. 1872. A standard work. 

BERNHEIM, G. D. & Cox, G. H. The History of the Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Synod and Ministerium of North 
Carolina. Philadelphia. 1902. 

BURGESS, E. B. Memorial History of the Pittsburgh Synod 
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 1748-1845-1924. 
Greenville. 1925. 

CLAY, J. C. Annals of the Swedes on the Delaware, from 
their First Settlement in 1636 to the Present Time. 
2nd. Ed. Philadelphia. 1858. 

Distinctive Doctrines and Usages of the General Bodies of 
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States, 
The. 2nd. Ed. Piladelphia. 1893. 

Contains collection of essays by leading theologians 
in the various Bodies on the subject as stated. 

EARLY, J. W. “The Ministerium of Pennsylvania and the 
Organization of the General Synod,” in The Lutheran 
Church Review, Vol. X1:61-70; 172-86. 

“Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States of 
America, The,” Article 9 in The Evangelical Quarterly 
Review, Vol. 20:1138 ff. 

Fox, L. A. “The Genesis of the Tennessee Synod” in The 
Lutheran Quarterly, vol. 52, 87-107. 

GILBERT, D. M. The Lutheran Church in Virginia. A His- 
torical Discourse. No. XI. in the collection, “Lutheran 
Church in America.” New Market. 1876. 

GOTWALD, F.G. ‘Pioneer American Lutheran Journalism, 
1812-50,” in The Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 42:161-204. 

GRAEBNER, A. L. Geschichte der Lutherischen Kirche in. 
America. 1st vol. St. Louis. 1892. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 249 


A scholarly work, carefully done. Viewpoint is 
critical of the work and views of the Lutheran Church 
of the “Muehlenberg Development.” 

HALLMAN, S. T. (Editor). History of the Evangelical Lu- 
theran Synod of South Carolina, 1824-1924. Columbia. 
1924. | 

HENKEL, S. History of the Evangelical Lutheran Tennes- 
see Synod. New Market. 1890. 

HULL, WILLIAM. “The Lutheran Church in the Courts,” in 
The Lutheran Church Review, Vol. 6:296-324. 

Good for history of the Lutheran Church in New 
York City to 1848. 

JACOBS, H. E. A Aistory of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church in the United States. Vol. 4. in the American 
Church History Series. New York. 1893. 

An excellent general treatment. Authoritative and 
judicial. Scholarly. The best general work on the 
Lutheran Church in America. 

KLINE, M. J. “The Genesis of the General Synod,” in The 
Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 49 :44-60. 

KRAUTH, CHARLES PORTERFIELD, ‘‘The General Synod,” in 
The Missionary, for Apr. 30, 1857:54; May 7, 1857:58 
& 59; May 14, 1857 :62 & 38. 

KROTEL, G. F. ‘The General Synod and the Pennsylvania 
Synod,” in the Lutheran and Missionary, for Nov. 9, 
16, 23, 1865. 

Kurtz, B. Why Are Youa Lutheran? or, A Series of Dis- 
sertations explaining the Doctrines, Government, Dis- 
cipline, etc., of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the 
United States. 12th Ed. Baltimore. 1856. 

LOCHMAN, GEORGE. The History, Doctrine, and Discipline 
of the Hvangelical Lutheran Church. Harrisburgh. 
1818. 

MANN, W. J. Lutheranism in America. Philadelphia. 
1857. 

Mann represented another viewpoint than that held 
by Schmucker. His work serves as an excellent cor- 
rective for extreme positions taken by men of the day. 

Nicum, J. Geschichte des Evangelisch-Lutherischen Min- 
isteriums vom Staate New York und angrenzenden 
Staaten und Laendern. Reading. 1888. 

Not only a treatment of the subject in an authorita- 
tive way, but also contains important source materials, 
including a digest of the proceedings of the Synod, 
1786-1887. 


250 The Development of the Synodical Polity 


“Our General Synod,” Article V. in The Evangelical Re- 
view, Vol. 5:239 ff. 

SACHSE, J. F. “The Genesis of the German Lutheran 
Church in the Land of Penn,” in The Lutheran Church 
Review, Vol. 16:60 ff; 288 ff; 521 ff. 

SCHAEFFER, C. F. “The Present Transition State of the 
Church,” in The Lutheran Church Review, Vol. 
flop iit, 

SCHMAUK, T. E. A History of the Lutheran Church im 
Pennsylvania, 1638-1820. Philadelphia. 1908. 

SCHMUCKER, B. M. “The Organization of the Congrega- 
tion in the Early Lutheran Churches in America,” in 
The Lutheran Church Review, Vol. 6:188-226. 

The standard work on the organization of the con- 
gregation in the Lutheran Church in America to the 
work of Muehlenberg. 

SCHMUCKER, S.S. The American Lutheran Church. Phila- 
delphia. 1852. 

A collection of occasional addresses and papers de- 
scriptive of the Lutheran Church in America, its his- 
tory, ideals, etc. Also some essays on theological ques- 
tions. A matured expression of Schmucker’s views. 

Ibid. The Church of the Redeemer as Developed within 
the General Synod of the Lutheran Church in America. 
Baltimore. 1867. 

Written in view of the attacks upon the General 
Synod resulting in the formation of the General Coun- 


cil. 

Ibid. Gemeinfassliche Bemerkungen ueber die Vereinung 
der Lutherischen Synoden, in den Vereinigten Staaten. 
Gettysburg. 1830. 

A reprint “aus dem Evangelischen Magazin,” Zwei- 
ter Jahrgang; Vierter Heft:55-7; Fuenften Heft:69- 
73; Sechstes Heft:85-8. Published serially and an- 
onymously as “Bemerkungen eines aufrichtigen Lieb- 
habers des lutherischen Kirche ueber die bruederliche 
Vereinigung ihrer verschidenen Synoden.”’ 

Copy used here is in “Schmucker Collection,” volume 
marked “1.1,” No. 16, to which Schmucker has signed 
his name as author. This definitely establishes the au- 
thorship, if indeed there has ever been any dispute 
concerning it. 

Ibid. Lutheran Manual on Scriptural Principles, or, The 
Augsburg Confession Illustrated and Sustained, etc. 


of the Lutheran Church in America 251 


Together with the Formula of Government and Disci- 
pline, adopted by the General Synod of the Evangelical 
eae Church in the United States. Philadelphia. 

SHEATSLEY, C. V. History of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Synod of Ohio and Other States. From the earliest 
beginnings to 1919. Columbus. 1919. 

A reliable work. For the earlier history a digest of 
the proceedings of the body is the method largely fol- 
lowed. This makes it authoritative. 

SHOBER, G. A Comprehensive Account of the Rise and 
Progress of the Blessed Reformation of the Christian 
Church. Baltimore. 1818. 

Usually cited, “Luther.” An account of the charac- 
ter and doctrine of Luther with an account of how the 
Church established by him arrived and prospered in 
America, etc. 

WALTHER, C. F. W. Die Stimme unserer Kirche in der 
Frage von Kirche und Amt. Erlangen. 1852. 

A discussion of the Church and the Ministry from a 
viewpoint different from that of the General Synod. 

WENTZ, A. R. History of the Gettysburg Seminary, 1826- 
1926. Philadelphia. 1926. 

Ibid. History of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Mary- 
land of the United Lutheran Church in America, 1820- 
1920. Harrisburg. 1920. 

Ibid. The Lutheran Church in American History. Phila- 
delphia. 1923. 

An excellent statement of the subject from the mod- 
ern viewpoint and interpretation. 

WoLrF, E. J. The Lutherans in America. New York. 1889. 

A popular treatment. In the preparation the au- 
thor was assisted by representatives of the various 
bodies of Lutherans. The work is generally reliable 
but has been superseded in authority by that of Jacobs. 


Other Denominations in the United States: 


IBUCKLEY. J. 24 History of Methodists in the United 
States. Vol. V. in The American Church History 
Series. 

Duss, J. H. “The Reformed Church, German,” in Vol. 
VII of The American Church History Series. New 
York. 1895. 


252, The Development of the Synodical Polity 


THOMPSON, R. E. A History of the Presbyterian Churches 
in the United States. Vol. VI. of the American Church 
History Series. New York. 1895. 

TIFFANY, C. C. A History of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America. Vol. VII. in 
the American Church History Series. New York. 1895. 


Biography and Autobiography: 


ANSTADT, P. Life and Times of Rev. S. S. Schmucker, D.D. 
York. 1896. 

The only full biography of Schmucker. Badly ar- 
ranged and highly controversial. Generally correct as 
to facts, and contains large portions of Schmucker’s 
own writings. A scientific biography of Schmucker 
would be a valuable contribution not only to Lutheran 
Church history but also to the general church history 
of the United States. 

DIEHL, G. “Dr. S. S. Schmucker,” in The Lutheran Quar- 
terly, Vol. 4:1-51. 

MANN, W. J. Life and Times of H. M. Muehlenberg. 
Philadelphia. 1888. 

The standard work on Muehlenberg. Accurate and 
well constructed. Mann was a careful and indefatiga- 
ble student and the Church owes much to his researches 
and services into her history during the colonial period 
of American life. 

Morris, J. G. Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry. Bal- 
timore. 1878. 

“Reminiscences of Lutheran Clergymen,” in The Evangeli- 
cal Review, Vol. 8:398-415. 

SCHMUCKER, B. M. “S. S. Schmucker,” in The Pennsylva- 
nua College Book, E. S. Breidenbaugh, Editor, pages 
154-7. Philadelphia. 1882. 

SPAETH, A. “Charles Porterfield Krauth and the General 
Synod up to 1859,” in The Lutheran Church Review, 
Vol. 1335-50; 89-119. 

SPRAGUE, W. B. (Editor). Annals of the American Lu- 
theran Pulpit; or Commemorative Notices of Dis- 
tinguished Clergymen of the Lutheran Denomination 
in the United States. With an historical introduction. 
New York. 1869. 


Addenda: (published too recently for study). 


EVJEN. J. O. “Luther’s Idea Concerning Church Polity.” 
The Lutheran Church Review, 45 :207-235; 339-373. 


See 


+ 


Pi 
ae 
1 
nee 
mY 
“4 if 
LY le 


mm 1 aa a ; 
React ee 
Riylt a ! 
4 VOL Nh rin 
ae v nk i) 


EP * 
(Lay 


i 
US 
‘a A st 


hs a 


ae 1 Ve 
fe niage ane? 
: 4 ‘rare i. 


by 
? 


ee 
ieee 
era 


: ; —< é 
- ine F ae 





Date Due 








PRINTED] 1N U.S.A. 





nceton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 


oo WNL 


1 1012 01035 7061 


























oyhhees i 
‘ 
ean M ; : 
PN evedeieg cae 
"gel adhe: ‘ 
eu eweRe tice ~ 
shie Tisae 
iw aeten whe : , 
hbase stad Hyne mi ey . 
ees bint : > \ ’ i 
‘ " ‘ 
' ‘ jee 4 
H ¢ if | 
ee hanee ‘ 
f ( , 
i f tet 
. { i } 
i U { 
t ‘ ' 
perietiit i i 
EF Hehe liegied ( 4 i 
; ‘ ’ . i 
' e } j 
i 
( \ t j 
i i ‘ } : 
Meiee : 
{ ‘ , 
fi 
t : 
t 
i ‘ t i 
‘ 
t 
, i 
ite { 
¢ se lhe ne 
Pepe mel et . ‘ 
Fed rerecs ; 
#hlbme ‘ ‘ ‘ 
Othe ge : 
° rine 
tase 
’ : 
‘ 
: 
; ; > 


